Truckers slowing down to save fuel

[Otto]

If the truckers want to drive 65, they are free to do so....in the RIGHT lane, which was put there specifically for that purpose.

They need not lobby to bring all other drivers to the slowest common denominator.

In particular, they and anybody else who wishes to drive slower should not impose on all others by driving slowly in the left lane.

And, since their vehicles are usually the most poorly designed from an aerodynamic standpoint, they should take advantage of considerable research into aero improvements of their trucks, which would get them substantial increases in fuel economy.

If Congress is to mandate fuel savings, it should start with mandating tax incentives for aero improvements, better driving habits, and, yes, proper inflation of tires.

[bgd73]

Originally Posted by diesel_john

we can't easily redesign all the roads.

how deep does the road bed freeze in Australia?

longer is in the right direction.

the slower trucks go, the more trucks we need.

the smart trucks shift up and "rack" back, i know a 12 liter CAT that gets 7MPG. grossing 80,000.

7 is very good.
Locations that are manlier (challenging) than a honda civic and its driver scared by trucks that do 70mph and get 5 times the fuel mileage with 40tons on have trucks wide open, the full feel of fuel/air man/machine and 80000 pounds. the pulsing gook retarder is not necessary.

This 62mph theory goes back to early 80s, in fact it was a relatives cb handle. "ol 62". the fleet retardation was taken away immediately...the truck increased in 2mpg and went to see 3 million miles. no retarder is good for an engine that can do more. A sped up version of retarding is the very midget car holding it to the floor at the start of a dragstrip..the wah wah noise of the engine cutting out may be ok there, but when you got engines going on the size of cars themselves, this retarder is very very bad for consumption, The engine, the drivers mind. The schedules of millions of trucks slowed down for a 500 pound honda that is scared of a workers breeze that pays more for the highway than thier annual income is repulsive. There is no other reason anyone would defend trucks going slower...
I hope to see the v8 that scania has coming to america. the smartest diesel in the world. Concentrate on modern evolving efficency, not a midget past...

[Formula413]

Originally Posted by bgd73

7 is very good.
Locations that are manlier (challenging) than a honda civic and its driver scared by trucks that do 70mph and get 5 times the fuel mileage with 40tons on have trucks wide open, the full feel of fuel/air man/machine and 80000 pounds. the pulsing gook retarder is not necessary.

This 62mph theory goes back to early 80s, in fact it was a relatives cb handle. "ol 62". the fleet retardation was taken away immediately...the truck increased in 2mpg and went to see 3 million miles. no retarder is good for an engine that can do more. A sped up version of retarding is the very midget car holding it to the floor at the start of a dragstrip..the wah wah noise of the engine cutting out may be ok there, but when you got engines going on the size of cars themselves, this retarder is very very bad for consumption, The engine, the drivers mind. The schedules of millions of trucks slowed down for a 500 pound honda that is scared of a workers breeze that pays more for the highway than thier annual income is repulsive. There is no other reason anyone would defend trucks going slower...
I hope to see the v8 that scania has coming to america. the smartest diesel in the world. Concentrate on modern evolving efficency, not a midget past...

Most...confusing...post...ever...

[Clev]

Originally Posted by bgd73

7 is very good.
Locations that are manlier (challenging) than a honda civic and its driver scared by trucks that do 70mph and get 5 times the fuel mileage with 40tons on have trucks wide open, the full feel of fuel/air man/machine and 80000 pounds. the pulsing gook retarder is not necessary.

This 62mph theory goes back to early 80s, in fact it was a relatives cb handle. "ol 62". the fleet retardation was taken away immediately...the truck increased in 2mpg and went to see 3 million miles. no retarder is good for an engine that can do more. A sped up version of retarding is the very midget car holding it to the floor at the start of a dragstrip..the wah wah noise of the engine cutting out may be ok there, but when you got engines going on the size of cars themselves, this retarder is very very bad for consumption, The engine, the drivers mind. The schedules of millions of trucks slowed down for a 500 pound honda that is scared of a workers breeze that pays more for the highway than thier annual income is repulsive. There is no other reason anyone would defend trucks going slower...
I hope to see the v8 that scania has coming to america. the smartest diesel in the world. Concentrate on modern evolving efficency, not a midget past...