SuperTruck hauls goods, sips fuel

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by bikeprof

As you know, the trailer is 8O% of the combination. LOTS of damage to the air is created by the tail end, so..., if we were to improve the tail end and create flowing instead of waterfalling, then the FUEL(in this case, FUEL/Diesel) economy would be GREAT!

I'm not going into description but many items can be done to improve the air CHAOS out of the back end.

I drove a truck,(owned few trucks), and I would try to keep the Diesel MPG's at about 7.57+(real figures) to an all time high(3 trips loaded), at 9.40 !
Mind you, '00 Freightliner Century/500 Cummins/10SP & 48' Flatbed spread, net combination lbs: 32,000+/- ~78,500 loaded
Without any MODS 'cept the nut behind the wheel.
Good stuff can come out of want and some technology :-)))))

Boat-tailing has been promoted since the US Civil War

It gets revisited from time to time,but $-trillions are already invested in what is commonly seen.
Capitalists want at least 12-years to modify the portfolios,milking existing investments for all they can get.
It may take Wal Mart to affect a real change.They own their fleet.It's a large fleet.And they'd make free money as some point after amortization,which could lead to ever lower prices,or ever larger profits to shareholders,or some of both.
As Hucho said the the 1980s,low drag is not a question of technical feasibility but rather the decision-makers choice of what to build.
Many would be frightened at the spectre of a design revolution vs slow,incremental change.Grand gestures are hard to pull off in the marketplace.
Even Daimler-Benz shareholders won't want the new Freightliner to obsolete their current product offerings.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by bikeprof

Trucking is as advanced a Barney or Fred were back in those days...
Still pushing the same(but somewhat better machines), down the road.

I'm ALL for improvement but there are sooo many factors involved and the #1 here is:
Owner/driver of the equipment.

Change a bulb, not much light difference is noted BUT change a mind and MANY things can be done.
For instance the "super singles"; better FE, less maintenance, tracking and turning performance, etc... and how have they been accepted. Not too well...

Hybrid buses are flowing every day in most cities here in the USA, why not some 18 wheelers, hmmm?

Trucking is advanced as it needs to be and thus regulation had to step in and make it move. That and the increased cost of fuel.

The trucking industry has a wide variety of needs with each carrying it's own important points.

Placing costly electric hybrid drives on long haul trucks will see very little payback compared to drayage or intercity operators where the truck sees constant stops and starts. Placing that cost into improved aerodynamic improvement benefits the long haul trucker much more, but does little for the city dump truck or delivery truck. Lightening the frame helps everybody. I think you see my point.

I think it has been hinted already that the driving factor in the trucking industry is the bottom line - money. If it doesn't make economic sense, no one will use it. It must have a reasonable payback. People such as Sheppard, who has been ecomodding his trucks for decades, are few and far between. Most owner/operators and larger firms are too conservative to think outside the box to any large degree. Stay with what works and look for changes that add to the profit margin in as sure and safe manner as possible. The changes must be reliable or your vehicle could be sidelined and if "the wheels aren't turning, you aren't earning". The changes must pass constant scrutiny and inspection. There is still some irregular interpretation of trucking laws depending on state and region. Throwing a far out design on the road will lose you hours of rolling time as you will find yourself explaining the same thing over and over at every inspection station.

What Sheppard has done, and the Supertruck project is extending, is to project the possibilities to a group of owners who are as conservative as insurance groups. The sales pitch must be compelling.

Another reason the industry seems to be "behind the times" is the simple need to see a return on investment. Most of these trucks are designed to go a million miles before an overhaul. A large industry exists to keep them going far longer than that. It was not unusual to see trucks with upwards of one and a half million miles on the odometer. The longer a truck works past it's payoff period, the better for the owner. Try to convince an owner to plunk down up to a quarter million dollars for a new model and he will look at his old 20 year old Kenworth and realize the ROI will not make sense. Sheppard and the Supertruck project are trying to make that ROI decision a slam dunk.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by elhigh

I'd like to see mandated fuel economy standards for heavy trucks. Then we'll see manufacturers pushing hard with what they already know how to do, but don't.

There are differing classes of trucks with differing load capacities and operation profiles.

Or do you do what the government has done and propose a target thermal efficiency? That would work across board no matter your load and operations.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by elhigh

I'd like to see mandated fuel economy standards for heavy trucks. Then we'll see manufacturers pushing hard with what they already know how to do, but don't.

It's been tried before.Mad Men from some of the think tanks were able to use the tobacco industry playbook to cast doubt upon any of the perceived benefits.When it was all said and done,more was said than done,and it was left to the 'market' to decide where technology would go.
We appear to prefer a fuel tank half full of foreign oil,over jobs,education,healthcare,or national defense.Pity.

[bikeprof]

We as both consumers and good protectors of our country, NEED to mandate better FE for any and all vehicles. Any and all commercial and household appliances(A/C-frig's, etc), need to be supervised also.
There is no point to 1. drill for petroleum 2. build a pipeline 3. and then transport it across our nation(s) so to ship to overseas.
IMO...

[oil pan 4]

Watch BBC.
Whats good about them? They kind speak English, they don't think any americans are actually watching them, the amount of influence from U.S. politics and American corporate dollars is non existent compared to any U.S. new outlet.

[freebeard]

To what end? The regulatory regime isn't the same there, they even drive on the 'wrong' side of the road. And they have a 'special relationship' with the Zionist Occupational Government.

How about RT? They have the names like Larry King, Max Keiser, Thom Hartmann...

Edit: Whereas BBC doesn't have names like Clarkson, Mays and Hammond.

[elhigh]

I don't know about how you could go about mandating different fuel economies for the different classes of trucks.

I'm not technically proficient enough to completely parse out what is meant by a target thermal efficiency.

However, of this much I'm pretty certain: higher fuel efficiencies for trucks is good for the US. It's good for everyone, every man woman and child. Everybody who has to inhale more than once in their life is going to benefit from higher fuel efficiencies in trucks. That's one aspect.

Economically speaking, it's slightly more limited. The fuel refiners, the fuel brokers, the fuel pumpers will suffer. It won't be great for them. But with lower overall fuel demand we could rely more on our own oil instead of foreign, so that's good for the US and displaces some of the lost revenues to foreign interests. Again, not great for them.

The reduced operating costs would encourage updating truck fleets to the newer, thriftier models. That's good for business, especially if we get domestic manufacturers off their butts in a hurry to step up to the challenge.

Reduced fuel costs telegraph throughout the economy to yield lower finished goods prices at the store.

This much I'm sure of. Of course we won't see the full benefit - everyone will want to cut their little slice out of the pie - or even the actual reduced prices, it may manifest as reduced inflation or delayed inflation. It's still a win, but a kind of backhanded, grudging one.

Now, if we could just pitch it to the Powers That Be from that standpoint, loudly enough to shout down the most vested lobby with the money to shout even louder, the oil producers, we might get some traction at making this real.

[Big Dave]

Folks, I drive the superslab every day and the penetration of MPG mods is remarkable. Trailer bottom skirts are commonplace and tail treatments are becoming moreso. I'm seeing more supersingle tires.

Next order of business: Streamlining tires. We know what is needed but keep in mind that truckers spend a lot of time checking their tires. a skirt system has to get out of the way quickly in driving rainstorms and snow or the drivers will resist.

I'm also seeing conversion to CNG as fuel. So far, CNG is a favorite of the beer barons, but that covers a bunch of trucks. Why the EPA insists on making the conversion expensive is beyond me.

But before you can do anything with trucks you have to come up with a better container. The standard container dominates everything but air transportation, and as such cannot be supplants for truck MPG alone.

[oil pan 4]

There is a CNG pump on highway 287 between dallas and Amarillo.
As far as I can tell, its mostly big rigs using it.

Originally Posted by Big Dave

Why the EPA insists on making the conversion expensive is beyond me.

They are completely incompetent.
More concerned with whats politically advantageous for themselves as opposed to what would actually be better for the environment.