New invention could benefit RVers.

hone eagle wrote:

C&SL wrote:
Well, I would rather have them put seat belts in school buses for the kids.

Agree but heres the problem

say we pass a law 'kids will be belted'
now what?
driver needs a light -first kid unclicks driver must stop,drivers are not allowed to leave the seat so we have to pay for a adult to have the responsibility? $$$$
I have asked police how will it be enforced ?they really don't want that can of worms,fines? who pays ,parents, school board, driver, see its easy to say but very difficult when you dive into the details.

True.

C&SL wrote:
Well, I would rather have them put seat belts in school buses for the kids.

Agree but heres the problem

say we pass a law 'kids will be belted'
now what?
driver needs a light -first kid unclicks driver must stop,drivers are not allowed to leave the seat so we have to pay for a adult to have the responsibility? $$$$
I have asked police how will it be enforced ?they really don't want that can of worms,fines? who pays ,parents, school board, driver, see its easy to say but very difficult when you dive into the details.

Well, I would rather have them put seat belts in school buses for the kids.

I agree about schoolies I drive one ,in the farm country I run, every stop is from 50 mph so aero will help a tiny bit .
What a stop start bus needs is a way to capture the energy blown away from the brakes and reapply it to get moving again ,now that would be a fuel savings.

Playtime II wrote:
Remember the 70s-80s and the OTR trucking industry? Most of the tractors were flat front/cab-over-engine design. Driver visibility, maneuverability, shorter tractor/longer trailer gave way to better fuel economy.

Absolutely nothing to do with it: cabovers were used because of max-length laws. When those were broomed, the long-nose tractors dominated. Note that a "classic" tractor (Pete 379, Freightliner Classic XL, Kenworth W900) is, if anything, LESS streamlined than a COE! (The first truly streamlined tractor was the KW T2000 in the late 1990's.)

az99 wrote:
That is total BS. What percentage of a school bus use is at any speed where aerodynamics come into play? Most of the use is slow speed stop and go.

You'd be surprised how many school buses in rural areas run highway speeds.

wa8yxm wrote:
Interesting, WOuld love to reduce fuel consumption.

X2

Interesting, WOuld love to reduce fuel consumption.

NASA sponsored some study on aerodynamics of vehicles - that appears to be able to translate pretty well to RVs.

http://adaptiveaerodynamic.com/NASA/88628main_H-2283.pdf

As you can see, at the speeds we travel, the front is of minor concern. A flat front with radiused corners is fine. It is at the back that we are missing the most benefit.

The bump on the bus roof may be beneficial, but it is very, very unlikely to be 20% and it is going to be of very limited value to most busses in any city who rarely see speeds where aerodynamics are a significant player in fuel economy.

I'd love to see a back-to-back test of a largish RV or trailer with a boat-tail.

camperpaul wrote:
Now imagine a 26 ft motorhome that got 16 MPG using the Oldsmobile Toronado drive train (the Olds got around 8 MPG).


1971 Travco.

I'll imagine it, but it's not going to happen. Not in this world anyway. I'm VERY familiar with the Olds 455. The only way that thing will get a 16 MPG EPA rating is if you built it on top of Pikes Peak and drove it to the bottom and took the MPG reading.

I bet the next thing I hear on this forum is two men in black coats and a black car talked to the boy and bought out his windshield patent. AKA the 100MPG carburetor. :R

Look, school busses are not race cars. Most of the time they putt around on streets at 40/hour or less. There is a reason they don't have aero packages on them.

There is also a reason why trailers like the V-Cross don't really work and trailers like Air Stream do somewhat. If the aero package on the V-Cross worked so well you would see tons of them in campgrounds. I think I have only seen one or two in my life in campgrounds.