Truckers slowing down to save fuel
 

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080322/slower_truckers.html

People start to do the right thing when it hurts them in their pocket book.

" The company said the move also would eliminate 72 million pounds of carbon emissions annually, or the equivalent to removing nearly 7,300 automobiles from U.S. highways. "

Do you think anyone would have done this voluntarily ?

Nope !

Driving extensively on the Nation's highways every week, I have to announce a resounding NO! They're usually riding my arse and speeding like mad.

The theory: with Diesel as high as it is, the philosophy might be to cover as much ground as possible within their "legal" operations day -- and recover the cost by squeezing-in that extra load.

My observations are mostly in the Midwest: Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, and Nebraska. Other regions may show different behaviour patterns.

RH77

The only trucks I've seen going slower than traffic are those that can't, eg loaded dump trucks, or the grocery trucks that shuttle between the warehouses and stores, which go, believe it or not, 50-55mph IME. Everyone else is pedal to the metal.

New law would limit trucks to 105 km/h

(Electronically limit)

http://lfpress.ca/perl-bin/publish.c...28322&s=wheels

It has the support of the industry players as well.

I guess the bonus's that drivers would get for getting loads early to destinations has gone out the window. Although it was interesting to see that the larger companies were adjusting the governors to reduce the top end from 65 to 62.

All that is fine, but missing a dock time wipes out your fuel savings. High-rate freight is time-sensitive. JIT and all that.

Considering the trucking companies were fully behind the push for the proposed Ontario law, I'm sure they've crunched the numbers very closely.

As I was coming back from the sugar shack this afternoon, I was crusing along on the highway when I passed 3 trucks from the same company drafting each other at 65 mph, and all trailers had skirts! It's the first time I've seen that. Looks like the fuel bills are so high they're starting to care.

Not on I-75 for the most part
 

For the most part, I find that they are more agressive. Especially the independent varieties. You'd think they'd be slowing to save fuel, but I think they've just gotten pissed their profit per load is dwindling. I'd bet the bigger companies will soon limit their drivers, for economy reasons.

Should the prices keep rising, you'll see some vendors turning to good ole' rail systems again. Cost per ton/mile will offset JIT deliveries. The JIT will be moderated by delivery re-scheduling. Everyone will pay whether in time or money.

I think speed restriction is a great primer to saving fuel, keeping costs low, and increasing safety. No one can challenge that it takes a good deal more reaction time and braking energy to avoid collisions at 75mph as opposed to 60mph. I can't believ they haven't gone there already.

Maybe its time we revise our highway code to allow higher weight limits on the highway and multiple trailers like the Australian road trains.
http://thirdrail.smorgasblog.com/use...hway%20007.jpg

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.

Amen to that. One of the only places I see triples or "Turnpike Doubles" (2 full-length trailers) are on the pay tollways. They really tear-up the highway, and the toll system seems to generate the revenue per axle to offset the damage.

I counted this on friday: the triple setup has 30 tires: 10 on the tractor: trailer 1 is king-pinned to the tractor (+4), a dummy kingpin/axle on each other one (+8) and two more trailers (+8) = 30 tires / 8 axles. A driver told me that there's virtually no control over that third trailer :eek: No abrupt movements...

RH77

Yikes. How would you reverse if there were 3 trailers?? I don't think I've ever seen more than 2 trailers on a Canadian semi truck.

We'd need the entire highway infrastructure rebuild if we went with road trains. Then again, it would be nice to drive on a nice heavy duty road for a change instead of the "5 yr rebuilds" we have out here

Exactly -- we need long term, durable, and thickly constructed roadways akin to Europe. Here's the problem. We have so many roads, surface area, and infrastructure, that affording an Interstate System that lasts longer than 5-years would tax the budget.

Some states like Missouri, Ohio, Minnesota, and California have extensive transportation systems from roads, rail, and maritime operations, that the tax-base would be stressed to the point of "uncomfortable tax implementations" to maintain the infrastructure. Perhaps the Pork could be reduced and the necessities handled. Uh-oh -- Warning -- Political content.

Sigh -- at least...

RH77

Why? The weight per trailer or per load bearing tire doesn't increase. You spread out the load over a larger number of tires. If anything, the wear on the roads would decrease because there would be fewer tractors pulling the same number of trailers.

Seems that there is a huge aftermarket potential for aero refit mods for such trucks. NASA and DOT did some research on this a few decades ago, but not much evidence is seen among the tractor trailer fleet: We still see the same clunky, squared-off shapes, lack of wheel fairings, and severe wake turbulence.

That might be an answer in some parts of the country, for some roadways, but I drive on I-75s most dangerous section. I've seen several dozen tractor trailer wrap ups collecting others in their wake with single trailers, following too close at 5-10mph over the speed limit. I've been stopped twice in the last 12 months less than a mile from my exit for over 3 hours on both ocassions while they cleared burning tractors and vehicle they in turn collected. A longer vehicle would only add to our miserable traffic metrics down here. I've all but quit driving I-75, even though it's a shorter and quicker route. Probably a few tenths less efficient as well.

The fleet drivers of UPS/FedEx and such have been trained well. I see them yeilding plenty of room, and maintaining safe, economical speeds. I commend their efforts and cannot imagine a more time sensitive service.

Sure, we all want our fresh meats and produce, but do we really have to have the foriegn made plastic, aluminum and pot metal trash that every department store gets daily that quick? I'd submit we all need to look at our utilization that drives JIT demands before adding one more vehicle to monitor.

Doubles & Triples
 

With double or triple trailers, you don’t reverse. These truck trains operate strictly terminal-to-terminal they are then taken to their destination as singles.

The advantage of doubles or triples is that you can spread the load out to more axles. Most trucks “cube out” – that is they fill the trailer volume with a load weight less than maximum. so doubles and triples often are not as heavy as they look.

At the other extreme, ever seen the “Michigan centipedes?” Michigan limits the weight of load per axle but not overall. So you see single trailers carrying heavy loads with 40 wheels under them.

Actually a pioneer in aero trailers is Wally World. The reason trailers have not received much aero treatment is that truckers usually drop off a box trailer and pickup another, so he has no investment in it. With Wally World, they own all the trailers and the trucking operations so they have really good reasons to dictate aerodynamic trailers and have the wherewithal to make that work.

Another story in the news about truckers slowing down:

Truckers ask other drivers to take go-slower approach
A truckers' group says energy independence depends on a 65 mph speed limit, but will other drivers go along?

Source

There's also a poll in the sidebar: have you slowed down to save fuel?

Results are here:
Have you reduced your speed to save gasoline?

60.7% - have slowed down
39.2% - haven't

810 votes counted

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.

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...