SuperTruck hauls goods, sips fuel
 

Freightliner SuperTruck hauls goods, sips fuel
Freightliner SuperTruck hauls goods, sips fuel | Fox News

http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncsta....jpg?ve=1&tl=1
By Gary Gastelu
·Published March 26, 2015
·FoxNews.com


Freightliner has unveiled the result of its SuperTruck project, and it lives up to the name.

The tractor-trailer was developed in partnership with a five-year, $115 million Department of Energy program that challenged truck makers to improve big rig fuel economy by at least 50 percent, and match the funding by the same amount.






Freightliner did that, and more. Its loaded 65,000-pound semi returned 12.2 mpg during a real world highway test, 115 percent better than the average truck on the road tod

The SuperTruck features a hybrid drivetrain with an 11-liter diesel engine and electric motor. Most of its accessories, including the air conditioning are run off the battery, instead of belts attached to the engine. There’s a waste heat recovery system that uses the exhaust to generate additional electricity by boiling water like a power plant, and solar panels on the roof of the trailer that can fully run its climate control system on a sunny day.

The computer-controlled transmission is connected to the navigation system and can plan its shifts ahead of changes in the terrain, even shifting into neutral to coast under certain circumstances, like when it’s cresting a hill. On the way down, the electric motor helps slow the truck down and charge the battery.

And aerodynamic design also plays a key role in the SuperTruck’s efficiency. It has a laid back windshield, skirted wheels, and extenders on the side of the tractor that close the gap between it and the trailer, where the air can get very turbulent in conventional trucks. The grille automatically closes to streamline things even more, opening only when engine cooling is needed, while the suspension can lower the front of the truck at highway speeds.
http://global.fncstatic.com/static/m...k-full-876.jpg
A newly-designed frame and lightweight materials used throughout its sleeper cab help reduce weight, and an on-demand steering assist system only draws power when the wheels are turned.

The SuperTruck would save a typical long haul trucker around 10,000 gallons of fuel per year, which translates to over $28,000 at today’s prices, but it’s only a concept, and not destined for production as it is. However, Freightliner has already been integrating several of its features, like the smart transmission and some of the aerodynamic tweaks, into its latest products

Looks EXECTLY like shepherd's rig that he built without $115 million. Glad truck companies are trying though, definitely a step in the right direction.

How long before Fox plays it up as unAmerican, or anti-business because it's all about burning less fuel?

Well isn't that a well thought out and reasoned question?

....said no one!:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Yes, it is:

Fox Reporter Conjures Mystery Numbers For New Tesla Attack | Blog | Media Matters for America

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...ews+chevy+volt

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...rgy+efficiency

The two google searches have plenty of goodies... and I only looked at the first page. There's probably a lot more... :rolleyes:

P.S. Must have been a USCAR/PNGV type coalition for trucks that wrapped up recently- I posted this from IH: http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...ers-31568.html

The point is good ideas don't need my money to prove and develop. If trucking companies want to save money thereby increasing profits let them pay the 115 million dollar bill themselves. Also, no way they spent 115 million putting some aero mods and solar panels on an existing truck. So if Fox news questions something like this, or the money pissed away on Solrinda or Tesla or bailouts of GM suddenly they are wrong to even question?
The truck is cool though.

From a purely economical standpoint I am curious how long it would take for the extra cost to manufacture and maintain something like this would pay for the fuel savings over the life of the truck.

$28000 less a year in fuel cost, saving 10k gallons or half the fuel normally consumed..

regards
mech

Often wondered if Fox News is just a front for the Oil companies.

They're shills for Big Anything.

IDK how people can subject themselves to it.

So many Haters. Just the sight of the words "Fox News" next to a post and the whole thread blows up. I've got news for you. Fox News carries more than twice the viewers of the next rated news channel. Almost as many viewers as the other three put together. Don't judge Fox by the stupid, arguing shows that all the channels put out on Sunday mornings. If you really want to know the truth of what is going on in the world, tune in to Fox in prime time once a week on Friday night for a dose of reality.
.
Cable News Ratings for Thursday, March 26, 2015 - Ratings | TVbytheNumbers.Zap2it.com
.

I forget.....
 

Was this thread about about a truck?

Let's quit talking mine is better than yours.

All that means is there are many stupid viewers.

The reason so any people watch Fox is because it is one of the few places you will get both sides. If you only listen to CNN, the 3 networks, PBS, and MSNBC you will not hear 1/2 of what's going on. By Fox simply putting out the other side they are hated. I personally never watch Fox anymore, there are better ways to quickly get the news during the day leaving my evening tv viewing open to watch people in Alaska do stuff.

if you're watching a news station that originates in the US you are not getting the full story. just a little FYI

^This. So many times I've read online news stories from many American sources, then I go look at the same story on The Daily Mail or some foreign source and their story will have twice the information.

I no longer watch TV news since I refuse to pay for cable. It is easy to put a ideological spin on technology when it involves energy and big business. We are living in a bipolar society. One has to gather information from a number of sources from Forbes to PBS.

Diesel electric systems have been proven in train engines. Ecomodders have shown that good ideas can be developed without spending a ton of money. That is not to say world class research is not being done in corporate facilities. I have worked in labs that are funded at $1,000 USD per day and I also work in my basement at home.

Being that I'm in trucking school...

...I love it. But the auto trans irks me.

So, we do not have anything else to say about the truck? My first thought was exactly what Spacemanspiff wrote.
http://www.airflowtruck.com/images/5...0a2e7ad653.jpg
13.4 MPG.

http://global.fncstatic.com/static/m...k-full-876.jpg
12.2 MPG.
9.8% better.

Do the images appear squished to anyone else?

They definitely reduced the size of the mirrors compared to the trucks on the road today, but I'd think with 115million they'd experiment with cameras instead of mirrors. I would think with the amount of miles that go on these trucks that the extra aero savings would pay itself back in no time.

Sure- if that's legal.

Heavily modding the trailer seems like cheating to me. Unless the truck is always going to be paired to that trailer, you won't be getting that benefit.

I wonder what it gets for mileage with a conventional box trailer. That's far more "real world" in my book.

Also, how much cost is added to build a truck like this?

This SuperTruck is more than a quick aero workover.
 

The performance results are due to a combination of improvements with the integration of a forward looking GPS as a most interesting and important point.

As we all know, the modification of driver technique bears heavily on the economy of a vehicle. Many of us who drive the same route on a daily basis become intimate with the upcoming terrain and this allows us to consciously modify our driving to fit the upcoming terrain. You can call it a type of Ecomodder "nap of the earth". This truck does this automatically and does so without the driver having to turn off fuel, up shift or coast. It's economy should be available no matter who is driving.

The rest of the truck is impressive when matched against the fact that the improvements made to the truck have to fit into a highly regulated and economically competitive industry. As Frank Lee pointed out, even the idea of side-view cameras would have to face the safety oriented regulations.

The extent of the work is even more impressive when the price of 115 million ,with government matching funds, is compared to the hundreds of millions needed to launch a new heavy duty line. Yes, it is a prototype, but outside of the waste heat recycling, most of the modifications could be integrated into existing production lines with little fuss.

I'd imagine quite a bit.

Many trucking firms own their trailers.
 

The costs could be prohibitive as firms often have 50 to 100% more trailers on hand than tractors to move them. Trucking firms here in California fought the regulation to move to "Smartway" trailers with improved aero and low rolling resistance tires. But once firms could see the 1500 dollars cost per trailer could be recouped in relatively short order, it became an easier sell. The same could be said of the tractors. Natural Gas Tractors have a price penalty of roughly 30-50K dollars over a standard clean tech diesel. But, for many operators, the tremendous savings in fuel costs means a quick payback. I foresee these mods costing roughly the same $50K USD to implement on the production lines. The fuel cost improvements will make these costs acceptable to many firms.

And you managed this without megabucks from the feds. You've done a very good thing.

I suggest parking your truck at the front door of DOT with a big sign displaying its actual fuel economy numbers and your costs of modification. Then call the newspapers and TV networks to come and see what a properly done project can be. Lord knows, they need some help.

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.

Nope, but you are welcome anyway! :D

Please observe the photo in this post.

Are you saying that Shepherd's stated numbers are wrong? The Bulletruck got better fuel economy in the field under actual use conditions than the so-called "SuperTruck." Shepherd's numbers were established by him, driving the truck and hauling goods. He's the one reporting the numbers, not a company.

Or are you just a Freightliner fan? I can understand having a preference that your fave be on top. I know Mustang fans, too.

Mind you, 12.2 is damned good. Don't get me wrong.

I went back and fixed my previous post. I was trying to not start a conversation about it.

irks
 

The automatic may be the only way to get the mpg rating,as it takes the driver out of the equation.
Also,the automatic doesn't require a clutch or any of the supporting hardware which wear out,which 'could' save owners over the life of the truck.(An uncle owned a modest trucking company in Joplin,Missouri,and some drivers would beat the trans out of the semi,and abandon the rig,never to be seen again).
We have so much gridlock now in North Texas that OTR drivers would probably welcome the loss the of left pedal and right arm gymnastics;as many Porsche owners eventually did in Southern California.Ford gave up on Manuals for their pickups.School buses.Transit buses.
Also,many companies are doing active telemetry with their rigs by satellite link and auto trans set points are something that can be altered on the fly.

squished
 

They seen okay to me.:)

Having driven a school bus, and avoiding automatic transmissions on all but one of my vehicles, I would not have wanted my esteemed colleagues to drive buses with manual transmissions. I personally kept the mechanics busy and I tried to know what I was doing!

cheating
 

I can't address the 'pairing' issue,but active suspension ought to be in the future.
*The rig doesn't need ground clearance when she's on the highway.
*Frontal area is reduced,that's good.
*The center of gravity is lowered,reducing rollover tendency.
*Splash and spray will be severely reduced,a great safety advantage to all motorists operating near the rig in foul weather.
*If they're forced into a jack knife by Barbie and Ken,there'll be less tendency to go over a side rail on overpasses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would expect a price premium (as we do today with hybrids),as this is all about business,but payments may stay similar,but with longer payouts.
With economies of scale,the rigs will be valued by the pound,just as today.
With industry-wide adoption,and rationalization of hardware,as soon as the cost of the original R&D and tooling is amortised,the costs (prices) of components will fall markedly.

got jobbed
 

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

So, automatics are cheaper to repair?

Ok, I am biased. I am a manual fanboy to begin with, plus I am putting in a fair bit of effort at truck school to get better (I fake my double clutches, I go full float and get praised for it). But everything about automatics is expensive.

Local buses would eat up transmissions or clutches though. Long-haul trucks get shifted a few times, run on the freeway, then repeat. Less wear per mile.

My understanding is that truck companies tried automatics and are switching back because fuel costs didn't reach parity. Unless this one is much better, I see a lot of 10-speeds still being on the road for a long time.

Most Class 8 trucks don't use fully automatic transmissions. But Allison just recently introduced an automatic transmission for them. But again, it's currently a very small, minuscule percentage.

The other non-manual transmissions are called Automated Manual Transmissions, or AMT's for short. AMT's are just an old 10, or 13, or 18 speed manual transmissions with robotic shifting and clutch actuation. Our new truck has an 18 speed Eaton AMT, and no clutch pedal.

Automated manual transmissions are the future, until they get efficiencies of other designs to be competitive with manuals. In a big rig, the minuscule amount of energy it takes to perform the hydraulic functions is far surpassed by the precision of operation, especially when combined with gps and predicted future operations based on knowledge of altitude and traffic conditions looking over the next hill and through the next intersection beyond our line of sight.

Freeing the operator from those predictable and redundant motions and thinking mean more attention can be focused on anticipating those things that need analysis beyond the capabilities of a reactive system (sitiational awareness), transitioning to proactive operation, with virtiual elimination of collisions.

Ah, interesting. I figured they were regular ol torque converter automatics.