Comments on: Aerodynamic Trucks http://lifeontheroad.com/2007/10/29/aerodynamic-trucks/369.html Discussion and opinions about the trucking industry Wed, 07 Jan 2009 02:34:57 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Anonymous http://lifeontheroad.com/2007/10/29/aerodynamic-trucks/369.html/comment-page-1/#comment-2170 Anonymous Tue, 16 Sep 2008 19:19:19 +0000 http://lifeontheroad.com/2007/10/29/aerodynamic-trucks/369.html#comment-2170 Quite frankly tractor aerodynamics was perfected a long time ago. The little tweaks on the tractors of today are just minor changes that are blown out of proportion by the marketing department. I know truckers with blunt nosed Pete's that get better mileage than a Cascadia. In order to improve on what we see on the road today major changes are in order. Convex windshields, sleepers under the driver, and by all means integration with the trailer. I see your design has merit, but the Germans designed an aerodynamic tractor 35 years ago too and actually built a full scale prototype. People who really know aerodynamics are still 30+ years ahead of their time. Things won't change until the ownership and logistics change. Until then it's all about the truck......and that's hard on the engineers that want to do it right. Quite frankly tractor aerodynamics was perfected a long time ago. The little tweaks on the tractors of today are just minor changes that are blown out of proportion by the marketing department. I know truckers with blunt nosed Pete’s that get better mileage than a Cascadia. In order to improve on what we see on the road today major changes are in order. Convex windshields, sleepers under the driver, and by all means integration with the trailer. I see your design has merit, but the Germans designed an aerodynamic tractor 35 years ago too and actually built a full scale prototype. People who really know aerodynamics are still 30+ years ahead of their time. Things won’t change until the ownership and logistics change. Until then it’s all about the truck……and that’s hard on the engineers that want to do it right.

]]> By: zach http://lifeontheroad.com/2007/10/29/aerodynamic-trucks/369.html/comment-page-1/#comment-2158 zach Wed, 03 Sep 2008 14:50:40 +0000 http://lifeontheroad.com/2007/10/29/aerodynamic-trucks/369.html#comment-2158 1987 volvo, old road way truck with all the arodynamics u need 1987 volvo, old road way truck with all the arodynamics u need

]]> By: dieselralph http://lifeontheroad.com/2007/10/29/aerodynamic-trucks/369.html/comment-page-1/#comment-1467 dieselralph Tue, 25 Mar 2008 19:40:53 +0000 http://lifeontheroad.com/2007/10/29/aerodynamic-trucks/369.html#comment-1467 I work for an engine maker. I work with a lot of fleets to get them to spec trucks with our engines. Here is a tip sheet you should consider and aerodynamics play an important part the faster you go. (difference between a square nose and an aero truck can be up to 15% improvement in fuel economy!) The one thing I see over and over is gearing problems. Many times diferences in one truck vs another is one is geared for power and one for fuel efficiency. Never spec one engine the same as another. Use the engine manufacturers gearing recommendations. A C-15 uses different gears than a Series 60 than an ISX. You gear a Cat like a Cummins and it will get horrible fuel economy. Gear a Cummins like a Cat and the drivers will complain about power. Each has its sweet spot. Also, if you buy a used truck, keep in mind the speed the original owner drove at. You buy a 379 and more than likely the owner let it run over 72 mph. Don't expect to drive it at 55 and feel all the power. They probably geared it tall for the high speed and sacrificed drivability at 55 in top gear. Also, stay in top gear 90% of the time and use cruise 70% or more. Cruise is alway .2-.4 mpg better than pedaling on long trips. <strong>Rock-Solid Rules</strong> § Every 2% reduction in aerodynamic drag results in approximately 1% improvement in fuel economy. § Above 55 mph, each 1 mph increase in vehicle speed decreases fuel economy by 0.1 mpg. (Drive 65 vs 75 and save 1 mpg regardless of the truck you drive. Thats about $10,000 a year if you drive 100,000 miles) § Worn tires provide better fuel economy than new tires, up to 7% better fuel economy.(Brand new vs. end of life) § Used lug drive tires can get up to 0.4 mpg better than new lug tires. (used means broken in) § Ribbed tires on the drive axles provide 2–4% better fuel economy than lugged tires. (new vs new) § Every 10 psi that a tire is underinflated reduces fuel economy by 1%. § The break-in period for tires is between 35,000 and 50,000 miles. § Tires make biggest difference in mpg below around 50 mph; aerodynamics is the most important factor over around 50 mph. § The most efficient drivers get about 30% better fuel economy than the least efficient drivers. § Idle time is costly. Every hour of idle time in a long-haul operation can decrease fuel efficiency by 1%. I work for an engine maker. I work with a lot of fleets to get them to spec trucks with our engines. Here is a tip sheet you should consider and aerodynamics play an important part the faster you go. (difference between a square nose and an aero truck can be up to 15% improvement in fuel economy!)
The one thing I see over and over is gearing problems. Many times diferences in one truck vs another is one is geared for power and one for fuel efficiency. Never spec one engine the same as another. Use the engine manufacturers gearing recommendations. A C-15 uses different gears than a Series 60 than an ISX. You gear a Cat like a Cummins and it will get horrible fuel economy. Gear a Cummins like a Cat and the drivers will complain about power. Each has its sweet spot. Also, if you buy a used truck, keep in mind the speed the original owner drove at. You buy a 379 and more than likely the owner let it run over 72 mph. Don’t expect to drive it at 55 and feel all the power. They probably geared it tall for the high speed and sacrificed drivability at 55 in top gear. Also, stay in top gear 90% of the time and use cruise 70% or more. Cruise is alway .2-.4 mpg better than pedaling on long trips.

Rock-Solid Rules
§ Every 2% reduction in aerodynamic drag results in approximately 1% improvement in fuel economy.
§ Above 55 mph, each 1 mph increase in vehicle speed decreases fuel economy by 0.1 mpg. (Drive 65 vs 75 and save 1 mpg regardless of the truck you drive. Thats about $10,000 a year if you drive 100,000 miles)
§ Worn tires provide better fuel economy than new tires, up to 7% better fuel economy.(Brand new vs. end of life)
§ Used lug drive tires can get up to 0.4 mpg better than new lug tires. (used means broken in)
§ Ribbed tires on the drive axles provide 2–4% better fuel economy than lugged tires. (new vs new)
§ Every 10 psi that a tire is underinflated reduces fuel economy by 1%.
§ The break-in period for tires is between 35,000 and 50,000 miles.
§ Tires make biggest difference in mpg below around 50 mph; aerodynamics is the most important factor over around 50 mph.
§ The most efficient drivers get about 30% better fuel economy than the least efficient drivers.
§ Idle time is costly. Every hour of idle time in a long-haul operation can decrease fuel efficiency by 1%.

]]> By: anonymous http://lifeontheroad.com/2007/10/29/aerodynamic-trucks/369.html/comment-page-1/#comment-1099 anonymous Tue, 22 Jan 2008 23:24:17 +0000 http://lifeontheroad.com/2007/10/29/aerodynamic-trucks/369.html#comment-1099 Regarding the comments by Pete. You could not be more right! There are no standards in vehicle configuration or in parameters for testing. Yes, they are playing with numbers. Bottom line, you want better mileage- Gotta do something about the trailer. Sounds easy enough until you consider the guy who owns the truck usually doesn't own the trailer, and the guy who owns the trailer doesn't directly pay for fuel. So now what? You're left with doing it all on the tractor. Which would be fine if the tractor actually could do it all, but it can't. Here's how to get the best mileage.....don't pull van trailers. Stick with flatbeds and your aerodynamic worries are over (as long as you don't have a condo with a 13' high roof!). Regarding the comments by Pete. You could not be more right! There are no standards in vehicle configuration or in parameters for testing. Yes, they are playing with numbers. Bottom line, you want better mileage- Gotta do something about the trailer. Sounds easy enough until you consider the guy who owns the truck usually doesn’t own the trailer, and the guy who owns the trailer doesn’t directly pay for fuel. So now what? You’re left with doing it all on the tractor. Which would be fine if the tractor actually could do it all, but it can’t. Here’s how to get the best mileage…..don’t pull van trailers. Stick with flatbeds and your aerodynamic worries are over (as long as you don’t have a condo with a 13′ high roof!).

]]> By: Pete http://lifeontheroad.com/2007/10/29/aerodynamic-trucks/369.html/comment-page-1/#comment-1093 Pete Sun, 20 Jan 2008 18:12:52 +0000 http://lifeontheroad.com/2007/10/29/aerodynamic-trucks/369.html#comment-1093 I would like to clarify a couple of things. First, truck manufacturers design cabs to direct the airflow over the vehicle like a car. The air must travel 13'6" to go OVER the cab and trailer. With our patented design, airflow is directed AROUND the vehicle, hence it only has to travel 4'0" +/- in each direction to go AROUND the cab. I have done extensive wind tunnel testing to prove this. I find it very difficult to believe that these trucks turn anything around .6 Cd unless those tests were conducted WITHOUT a trailer. Secondly, lets look at the testing standards for these type of vehicles. There are none. There is nothing to say that a Class 8 Semi Truck MUST be tested with a 13'6" +/- tall trailer behind it. So lets ask, were all of these trucks tested with the same parameters or are we just playing with figures? When I tested my truck design at a major University, the head professor did not think that it would break 1.0 Cd. It turned a .4Cd and that was with a trailer. By the way, my design came about thru extensive interviews with over the road drivers to find out what they required. Most trucks are designed based on how a "stylist" perceives they should look. Thats why they design them like cars. With the air going OVER the vehicle. www.alateinc.com "old news" page also check out my pickup truck products on "products page 2" I would like to clarify a couple of things. First, truck manufacturers design cabs to direct the airflow over the vehicle like a car. The air must travel 13′6″ to go OVER the cab and trailer. With our patented design, airflow is directed AROUND the vehicle, hence it only has to travel 4′0″ +/- in each direction to go AROUND the cab. I have done extensive wind tunnel testing to prove this. I find it very difficult to believe that these trucks turn anything around .6 Cd unless those tests were conducted WITHOUT a trailer.

Secondly, lets look at the testing standards for these type of vehicles. There are none. There is nothing to say that a Class 8 Semi Truck MUST be tested with a 13′6″ +/- tall trailer behind it. So lets ask, were all of these trucks tested with the same parameters or are we just playing with figures?
When I tested my truck design at a major University, the head professor did not think that it would break 1.0 Cd. It turned a .4Cd and that was with a trailer. By the way, my design came about thru extensive
interviews with over the road drivers to find out what they required. Most trucks are designed based on how a “stylist” perceives they should look. Thats why they design them like cars. With the air going OVER the vehicle. http://www.alateinc.com “old news” page also check out my pickup truck products on “products page 2″

]]> By: Pete http://lifeontheroad.com/2007/10/29/aerodynamic-trucks/369.html/comment-page-1/#comment-1077 Pete Thu, 17 Jan 2008 01:30:53 +0000 http://lifeontheroad.com/2007/10/29/aerodynamic-trucks/369.html#comment-1077 Take a look at my design that I delivered to PACCAR 25 years ago. These new trucks are turds. www.alateinc.com Take a look at my design that I delivered to PACCAR 25 years ago. These new trucks are turds.
http://www.alateinc.com

]]> By: 387 http://lifeontheroad.com/2007/10/29/aerodynamic-trucks/369.html/comment-page-1/#comment-1070 387 Wed, 16 Jan 2008 01:11:57 +0000 http://lifeontheroad.com/2007/10/29/aerodynamic-trucks/369.html#comment-1070 Where did you get that 13% number from? They were too scared to test 387 ;-) But thanks for interesting input on math basics. Where did you get that 13% number from? They were too scared to test 387 ;-)
But thanks for interesting input on math basics.

]]> By: Anonymous http://lifeontheroad.com/2007/10/29/aerodynamic-trucks/369.html/comment-page-1/#comment-1061 Anonymous Sun, 13 Jan 2008 14:12:18 +0000 http://lifeontheroad.com/2007/10/29/aerodynamic-trucks/369.html#comment-1061 I just read the note on Pete 387 fuel economy...it's a laugh. The ProStar has been tested to be about 13% more aerodynamic than the 387. The aero drag force accounts for 1/2 the force on the vehicle at 65 mph, thus the ProStar will achieve approximately 6.5% better fuel efficiency as compared to the 387. This difference will save you $4,500 in fuel per year on average with fuel at $3.50 per gallon and traveling 120,000 miles per year averaging 6 mpg (20,000 gallons of fuel at $3.50 per gallon is $70,000). WOW, fuel cost is really driving competition in the Industry. I just read the note on Pete 387 fuel economy…it’s a laugh. The ProStar has been tested to be about 13% more aerodynamic than the 387. The aero drag force accounts for 1/2 the force on the vehicle at 65 mph, thus the ProStar will achieve approximately 6.5% better fuel efficiency as compared to the 387. This difference will save you $4,500 in fuel per year on average with fuel at $3.50 per gallon and traveling 120,000 miles per year averaging 6 mpg (20,000 gallons of fuel at $3.50 per gallon is $70,000). WOW, fuel cost is really driving competition in the Industry.

]]> By: Anonymous http://lifeontheroad.com/2007/10/29/aerodynamic-trucks/369.html/comment-page-1/#comment-1060 Anonymous Sun, 13 Jan 2008 14:05:06 +0000 http://lifeontheroad.com/2007/10/29/aerodynamic-trucks/369.html#comment-1060 I have heard of several companies that are running identically spec'd ProStars and Cascadias. The ProStars are getting 5%-10% better fuel economy. International's results and advertising is right on. Who is Freightliner trying to fool with their advertising? Maybe, Freightliner's engineers and marketing groups don't know how to test a truck. I have heard of several companies that are running identically spec’d ProStars and Cascadias. The ProStars are getting 5%-10% better fuel economy. International’s results and advertising is right on. Who is Freightliner trying to fool with their advertising? Maybe, Freightliner’s engineers and marketing groups don’t know how to test a truck.

]]> By: 387 http://lifeontheroad.com/2007/10/29/aerodynamic-trucks/369.html/comment-page-1/#comment-778 387 Wed, 05 Dec 2007 16:22:56 +0000 http://lifeontheroad.com/2007/10/29/aerodynamic-trucks/369.html#comment-778 387 is the most aerodynamic truck since about 9 years already. It also has widest, most comfortable cab and sleeper. It rides like a king because it is 379 with new cab indeed. You guys at IH better start really working (making real progress that is) because its a SHAME, that after 9 years since 387 inception you still are not able to apply ANY new aspect of pro-aerodynamic design except lowering the side-fairings (which is actually great but not practical idea) 387 is the most aerodynamic truck since about 9 years already. It also has widest, most comfortable cab and sleeper. It rides like a king because it is 379 with new cab indeed. You guys at IH better start really working (making real progress that is) because its a SHAME, that after 9 years since 387 inception you still are not able to apply ANY new aspect of pro-aerodynamic design except lowering the side-fairings (which is actually great but not practical idea)

]]>