Everything they can to stifle it.

[mrsleeve]

^

Did you not read my post????


If buy new trucks would save trucking outfits that much money, and STILL HALL THE SAME AMOUNT OF FREIGHT while getting those efficiency numbers they would be doing it already, they would be scrambling to them. The fuel bill is one of largest costs and lowering that bill by even a few percentage points = a shit ton of extra profits and better margins and better pricing on trucking stuff = better prices on the shelves at the store for us.

To get those numbers they are going to have to lower the freight capacity PER LOAD to lighten things up enough to meet the govt standards. This will REQUIRE MORE TRIPS to haul a given amount of freight = MORE TRUCKING = MORE FUEL SPENT = MORE WEAR AND TARE = MORE FUCKING MONEY SPENT = HIGHER FUEL PRICES = HIGHER PRICES ON EVERYTHING FOR US.

Need I continue to point this shit out, or is common sense just dead now a-days????

[nando]

increasing fuel economy will cost more because the trucks cost more. But shipping companies will save 10-15% or more on fuel costs. And that will cause them to have to raise prices? wait, which is it now?

sometimes you make no sense..

[Kruzen]

increasing fuel economy will cost more because the trucks cost more. But shipping companies will save 10-15% or more on fuel costs. And that will cause them to have to raise prices? wait, which is it now?

sometimes you make no sense..

To get those numbers they are going to have to lower the freight capacity PER LOAD to lighten things up enough to meet the govt standards. This will REQUIRE MORE TRIPS to haul a given amount of freight = MORE TRUCKING = MORE FUEL SPENT = MORE WEAR AND TARE = MORE FUCKING MONEY SPENT = HIGHER FUEL PRICES = HIGHER PRICES ON EVERYTHING FOR US.

I think he spelled it out for you there :p

[mrsleeve]

^

Yes truck will cost more, But in theory (on paper) it will save them money on fuel in the long and pay for them selves and then some thus making better margins over the long term.

In the real world the only way they are going to be able to meet the decree of the EPA standards for efficiency is to LOWER the amount of weight hauled per trip.

Simple really this mandate is going to make trucks more expensive to maintain and operate, thus cutting into the fuel savings, and MORE TRIPS (again will have to lower the gross payload to achieve the mandate) to deliver the same amount of freight = More fuel demand and higher over all costs in general.

Makes plenty of sense

[nando]

that's your assumption. I'm betting the companies using these trucks will be all over a 10-15% reduction in fuel costs, even if the trucks cost more up front.

[TurboJake]

Semi fuel economy is based on a full load.. They are one of the few ICE vehicles that get better fuel economy with a fully loaded trailer, than an empty one.

So, MrSleeve, IF they lower capacity.
- they'll lose fuel economy...
- They'll have a less desirable product (As larger loads are more cost efficient for the company purchasing)
- Their trucks won't sell

This will not going to be the route they take. It's cheaper and makes more business sense to make a truck that's bigger, and consumes less fuel.
Compare that to say, Bankruptcy.

Now if ALL of the companies get together, and agree to make the smaller capacities, and pretty much make all of their products vanilla to the next company, then yes. What you state will come true, as the consumer will have nothing to choose from really.
That's a pretty big if.

[nando]

just look at the demand for the fuel efficient 787. it's been a disaster as far as getting the plane out on time, and they cost billions of dollars, but the fuel savings is enough that airlines are stepping all over themselves to get them. fuel costs are a huge factor when you're simply moving people/things from point A to point B. an extra 10% up front on something that lasts 20-30 years isn't.

[mrsleeve]

Jake:
You are right to a point, you are telling me that a truck with a empty back haul is going to use more fuel to drag it back over the hill than one laden with 80k lbs of goods. NO thats not the case, they are designed to haul shit and the economy dose change with the amount shit on board but yes over all loaded or empty trucks are getting 4-7mpg depending on configuration and load.

Efficacy is at its peak if there was a technology or innovation out there that would save trucking outfits 3% they would be falling all over them selves to get it as it is right now.

The Govt just decreeing that they have to increase the standards .......... is well ludicrous.

Yes based on a full load and thats why Fedex UPS and lots of the bigger shippers use double's and Triples when they can they haul 2-3 times the freight for 10-20% less fuel economy than a single load. There by making better use of the fuel used. The govt is looking at this form a purely MPG stand point and is 180* opposite of this principal. Just so long as those trucks get X mpg, it dose not matter how many more trips it takes.

By the govt and state decrees they are limited to gross weight they can haul, feds say 80k lbs, states are not less than that but some allow more. Because they cant haul more than 80k at a whack with out special permitting and restrictions, coupled with the fact that you cant build a BIGGER truck that gets better economy in general thats not going to work.

Like I said in my 1st post stepping over a dollar to pick up a dime, and they precisely what they are doing


Nando:

No shit look at the 787. Kenworth, Peat, Volvo ect..... Have been working feverishly for 50 years to make trucks get better economy and have been spending billions to do so over the years. They know that if they offer 3% better economy over the competitors they will sell more trucks than anyone else (for general HWY use anyway).

The govt just decreeing it to happen is not just going to magically some how change the laws of physics and thermodynamics, (but I bet congress could write new ones after all they are just laws right). Takes x amount of BTU to move 80k lbs of shit over a hill, dose not matte if its with trucks, horses or people. Some ways are more efficient like you keep telling me the truck is cuz it takes only 1 of them and 1 trip. The govt telling them they have to get a X distance for the X amount of BTU spent is a bit of a unidirectional arbitrary view dont you think???? Because they dont care how many trips it now takes to move that 80k lbs of shit, just that while moving its getting the mandated efficacy. It fails to look at the bigger picture of over all efficiency, like moving 150k lbs at a time Vs 80k.

[nando]

i see what you're saying about not being able to increase load, and using a smaller load as an easy way out - but you have zero proof that the technology improvements won't be there to increase fuel economy for the same payload. Especially with how low it is now, a 1mpg increase would be a big percentage change.

[TurboJake]

Jake:
You are right to a point, you are telling me that a truck with a empty back haul is going to use more fuel to drag it back over the hill than one laden with 80k lbs of goods. NO thats not the case, they are designed to haul shit and the economy dose change with the amount shit on board but yes over all loaded or empty trucks are getting 4-7mpg depending on configuration and load.

Efficacy is at its peak if there was a technology or innovation out there that would save trucking outfits 3% they would be falling all over them selves to get it as it is right now.

The Govt just decreeing that they have to increase the standards .......... is well ludicrous.

Yes based on a full load and thats why Fedex UPS and lots of the bigger shippers use double's and Triples when they can they haul 2-3 times the freight for 10-20% less fuel economy than a single load. There by making better use of the fuel used. The govt is looking at this form a purely MPG stand point and is 180* opposite of this principal. Just so long as those trucks get X mpg, it dose not matter how many more trips it takes.

By the govt and state decrees they are limited to gross weight they can haul, feds say 80k lbs, states are not less than that but some allow more. Because they cant haul more than 80k at a whack with out special permitting and restrictions, coupled with the fact that you cant build a BIGGER truck that gets better economy in general thats not going to work.

Like I said in my 1st post stepping over a dollar to pick up a dime, and they precisely what they are doing


Nando:

No shit look at the 787. Kenworth, Peat, Volvo ect..... Have been working feverishly for 50 years to make trucks get better economy and have been spending billions to do so over the years. They know that if they offer 3% better economy over the competitors they will sell more trucks than anyone else (for general HWY use anyway).

The govt just decreeing it to happen is not just going to magically some how change the laws of physics and thermodynamics, (but I bet congress could write new ones after all they are just laws right). Takes x amount of BTU to move 80k lbs of shit over a hill, dose not matte if its with trucks, horses or people. Some ways are more efficient like you keep telling me the truck is cuz it takes only 1 of them and 1 trip. The govt telling them they have to get a X distance for the X amount of BTU spent is a bit of a unidirectional arbitrary view dont you think???? Because they dont care how many trips it now takes to move that 80k lbs of shit, just that while moving its getting the mandated efficacy. It fails to look at the bigger picture of over all efficiency, like moving 150k lbs at a time Vs 80k.

I'm not arguing about any of this, but I'm not admitting defeat. I just have to go to class.

The only thing I wanted to say is that 4-7mpg is fucking awful for a semi. My neighbor (Who is a trucker, and long time friend), pulls 11mpg heavy and 9 light with his volvo. Bobtailing he gets 8.


Even 90s macks get 7 mpg

[mrsleeve]

Jake

I was not aware they were up that far yet, I work around heavy construction tractors where the low boy weights 55k, and then you put 130k machine on it 5-7 was about the best down hill with a tail wind . I was not aware that otr trucks were that much better. Interesting. But when bob tailing they dont have all the momentum for hills and lose quite a bit of aero


Nando
Agreed, other than the fact that in the 70's with pure mechanical injection and old school tech trucks were getting 2-4 mpg average some times less. Now we are closer to 5-6 average loaded mile. In 35 years the economy has double, but thats with modern electronically metered fuel, better aero, and advancements in tire and lube tech. Not saying that economy for heavy hauls will not reach 18mpg in the future, but the govt arbitrarily decreeing it and on this date it has to happen is just not really feasible. Other than by lowering the amount of freight hauled at a time to hit those targets. Its a matter of physics, no more no less

Edit, thanks to Jake ok now average is closer to 9-10 loaded mile and

[Morrison]

It looks like aero improvements are going to be one of, if not the major avenue for these efficiency improvements. The company in the link below partnered with the department of energy to design undertray type devices for trailers and are expecting 7-12 % efficiency increases right there.

http://www.waffleswaffleswaffles.gov/articles/supercomputers-semi-trucks-and-america-s-clean-energy-future

[Morrison]

In addition, they are taking weight into their calculation for fuel economy, so they won't be able to just "haul a lighter load" to get there. They aren't simply measuring mpg, they are looking at gallons per 1,000 ton-miles.

See page 5: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420f11031.pdf

Also, the new regulations only apply to the manufacturers of equipment, not the end user. It's not like the weigh stations are going to check on their average mpg for the trip thus far and make them unload cargo or something, as long as they are under the 80,000 lb limit.

[TurboJake]

Knowing you were coming from the heavy construction background, rather than the OTR trucking. Which is where I was coming from. I have no dealings with the Construction equipment and lowboy's (Except for loading giant CNC machines on and off of them. Nothing even close to any CAT... Maybe as much as it's track or wheel)

Then fuck yeah what you say will probably happen.

It's going to take many, many years for the ICE to really be able to pull the weight that your dealing with with improved efficiency. They're best bet is to go to a hybrid setup much like a train. And that's going to make the costs for those type of hauling vehicles skyrocket beyond belief.

And you are blowing their peak efficiency load completely out of the water. Of course I'm not going to argue that a 40ton load will use less fuel than a 80-90 ton load.

That's just foolish

[mrsleeve]

In addition, they are taking weight into their calculation for fuel economy, so they won't be able to just "haul a lighter load" to get there. They aren't simply measuring mpg, they are looking at gallons per 1,000 ton-miles.

See page 5: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420f11031.pdf

Also, the new regulations only apply to the manufacturers of equipment, not the end user. It's not like the weigh stations are going to check on their average mpg for the trip thus far and make them unload cargo or something, as long as they are under the 80,000 lb limit.

Ummm yeah per ton mile is still a calculation of economy just as is MPG. Yes they can an more than likely will have to lighten loads to achieve said decree.


Right is for manufacturers, that make the shit for the end user. Just like how there will be a warning on the thing all over the place that the truck is now only rated to haul 71k to be in compliance with the federal CAFE standard. you haul more then 71k, and there you are now in viloation of the Federal law and thats a big no no. Park it over there driver till someone comes to take some freight off it, and here is 2000 dollar ticket.

Look to the late 70's into the early 80's You could not hardly buy a car in the US with a manual trans unless it was a ecco box small car. Corvettes were not even sold with manuals for like 6 years and then when they came back there was fucking automatic bolted to the back of them to keep YOU as a driver in line with the Federal Emissions laws.