Airtabs on Rubber Roof

I've seen them on a few 18 wheelers, but you almost have to look for them. They aren't that obvious on that type rig.

I installed them on my RV along the sides and the roof. I didn't try to attach them to the rubber part of the roof. Instead, I had enought fiberglass on the edge of the roof to glue most of the airtab on that, and for the pointed end that faces to the rear I filled-in some of the gap underneath with silicone just to give it some support and keep it from vibrating in the wind. After six years, they're still there as originally fixed.

ronfisherman wrote:
You could put a strip of EternaBond under the AirTabs.

Exactly what I did,already had Eternabond covering the rear seam so I put another 4 in strip down and put Air Tabs on. Before I did that I used one to experiment on a piece of Eternabond. After it was on I could not get to come off,that is some good adhesive that they use on the Air Tabs.

A freight hauler might drive hundreds of thousands of miles a year. For them a savings of .25 or .5 mpg adds up to real money, making the investment potentially something that pays off. To us with trailers - not so much. I'm skeptical we would even notice and very skeptical that it would pay off.

IAMICHABOD - what benefits have you observed?

So far I haven't had a real long run,only about 200 miles, to see any MPG results, I really think it will not be a large amount of difference. We ran Vortex generators on some of our trailers when I was working and saw some amount of fuel savings and over the road stats that made them worth while in the very large amount of miles that we traveled. It also stabilized the trailers in windy and inclement weather,as an added bonus it kept the rear doors cleaner and free of debris and ice.

My findings so far is that it has greatly reduced the push from being passed by trucks and passing them,also the handling in windy conditions has improved,and the rear of the RV is cleaner.

I did this for better stability,not so much for better MPG but any savings would be a plus. So far I am happy with the results.

When I get more miles on them I will return and put those findings up.

By reducing the vacuum behind the rig it makes sense that it would improve stability. I use the Reese dual-cam and have a pretty stable outfit, but I do get some push/pull from the big rigs and I like this idea.

If I did not want to install them along the top I wonder if I would still get a benefit by running them along both sides? I expect there would still be a benefit, but less of one. If I get inspired I might start with both sides and then decide later if I will apply along the top. The rig is under cover for the off-season so I will not be doing anything soon. Just thought this was a neat idea.

Thanks,
Stu