Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > Aerodynamics
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 03-12-2011, 01:41 PM   #11 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Omaha Nebraska area
Posts: 271

Civic - '98 Honda Civic DX
90 day: 41.44 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1
Thanked 8 Times in 5 Posts
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.

  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 03-12-2011, 01:48 PM   #12 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Omaha Nebraska area
Posts: 271

Civic - '98 Honda Civic DX
90 day: 41.44 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1
Thanked 8 Times in 5 Posts
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2011, 04:09 PM   #13 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
euromodder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 4,683

The SCUD - '15 Fiat Scudo L2
Thanks: 178
Thanked 652 Times in 516 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianAbington View Post
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.
__________________
Strayed to the Dark Diesel Side

  Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2011, 10:21 PM   #14 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Posts: 2,442

2004 CTD - '04 DODGE RAM 2500 SLT
Team Cummins
90 day: 19.36 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,422
Thanked 737 Times in 557 Posts
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.

.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2011, 03:47 PM   #15 (permalink)
aero guerrilla
 
Piwoslaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Posts: 3,691

Svietlana II - '13 Peugeot 308SW e-HDI 6sp
90 day: 58.1 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,268
Thanked 721 Times in 458 Posts
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).
__________________
e·co·mod·ding: the art of turning vehicles into what they should be

What matters is where you're going, not how fast.

"... we humans tend to screw up everything that's good enough as it is...or everything that we're attracted to, we love to go and defile it." - Chris Cornell


[Old] Piwoslaw's Peugeot 307sw modding thread
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2011, 03:51 AM   #16 (permalink)
Mechanical engineer
 
Vekke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Kitee (Finland)
Posts: 1,244

Siitin - '98 Seat Cordoba Vario
90 day: 58.56 mpg (US)

VW Lupo 3L --> 2L - '00 VolksWagen Lupo 3L
Diesel
90 day: 104.94 mpg (US)

A8 luxury fuel sipper - '97 Audi A8 1.2 TDI 6 speed manual
90 day: 64.64 mpg (US)

Audi A4B6 Avant Niistäjä - '02 Audi A4b6 1.9tdi 96kW 3L
90 day: 54.57 mpg (US)

Tourekki - '04 VW Touareg 2.5TDI R5 6 speed manual
90 day: 32.98 mpg (US)

A2 1.4TDI - '03 Audi A2 1.4 TDI
90 day: 45.68 mpg (US)

A2 1.4 LPG - '02 Audi A2 1.4 (75hp)
90 day: 24.67 mpg (US)
Thanks: 259
Thanked 803 Times in 391 Posts
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 .
__________________


https://www.linkedin.com/in/vesatiainen/

Vesa Tiainen innovation engineer and automotive enthusiast
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2011, 09:05 AM   #17 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,927
Thanks: 877
Thanked 2,024 Times in 1,304 Posts
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
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2011, 12:28 PM   #18 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
bondo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 279
Thanks: 90
Thanked 240 Times in 90 Posts
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
  Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to bondo For This Useful Post:
aerohead (12-06-2011), Vekke (11-27-2011)
Old 11-27-2011, 01:51 PM   #19 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Sven7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Warren, MI
Posts: 2,456

Boo Radley - '65 Ford F100
90 day: 13.28 mpg (US)
Thanks: 782
Thanked 667 Times in 409 Posts
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
__________________
He gave me a dollar. A blood-soaked dollar.
I cannot get the spot out but it's okay; It still works in the store
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2011, 02:45 PM   #20 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
bondo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 279
Thanks: 90
Thanked 240 Times in 90 Posts
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

  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to bondo For This Useful Post:
Sven7 (11-27-2011)
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com