13 mpg semi

Interesting article, thx for posting. Thirteen MPG for a vehicle and load that large is significant. The ability to move a huge mass and a very large weight at highway speeds at that MPG is amazing progress from what I recall from my very limited experience driving much smaller commercial trucks 45 + years ago.

Good article, in that it details the research and development that went into this study. This is one 'study' that actually has practical use.;)

dodge guy wrote:
That's also best case scenario. I'm sure it's only at 55 or 65mph. Not driving like a crazy person. And treating the equipment with a little respect! Now give it to the trucker that has to "get there now" and I'm sure that 13mpg is history.

E-logs and governors have already changed that. The freight hailers simply have to buy more equipment and drivers. And pay which hasn't budged in forty years (after inflation) despite higher cost of living plus taxes.

The mega carrier tractor I'm in is slow and underpowered even for 15-liters displacement. But it averages over 7-mpg vs the 5.5 of the last rig I was in. 16,000 gallons annually versus 21000 gallons. Do the math.

Computerized inventory makes ordering simpler. Trucks are the last neglected part of a the supply chain as to efficiency improvement.

But it won't increase take home pay for company drivers so as to offset losses already incurred , nor will it result in lower retail prices.

dodge guy wrote:
That's also best case scenario. I'm sure it's only at 55 or 65mph. Not driving like a crazy person. And treating the equipment with a little respect! Now give it to the trucker that has to "get there now" and I'm sure that 13mpg is history.

This^^ -best case-
compond engines have a incredibly narrow band where they are most economical ,I think Detroit uses compounding already.

That's also best case scenario. I'm sure it's only at 55 or 65mph. Not driving like a crazy person. And treating the equipment with a little respect! Now give it to the trucker that has to "get there now" and I'm sure that 13mpg is history.

LIKE2BUILD wrote:

p220sigman wrote:
I also have to wonder how the fairings covering the rear wheels will handle a blowout. Still, if they can come even close to these numbers in real world use, that will be a huge benefit for the trucking industry and drivers.

They will probably get shredded. But, that is probably the trade-off you have to accept for reduced fuel consumption.

I've seen Air Tabs advertised for years. The demonstration videos are pretty convincing and the science behind them seems solid. I'm surprised this SuperTruck project didn't try to incorporate something like the Air Tabs in the design to further increase efficiency.

KJ

V-Spoilers (Airtabs is the name in North America, I guess), has actually already been implemented in both tractors and trailers. I think it is Volvo and SDC Trailers that did this. Saw it at a show. Also see it more and more on European hwys

p220sigman wrote:
I also have to wonder how the fairings covering the rear wheels will handle a blowout. Still, if they can come even close to these numbers in real world use, that will be a huge benefit for the trucking industry and drivers.

They will probably get shredded. But, that is probably the trade-off you have to accept for reduced fuel consumption.

I've seen Air Tabs advertised for years. The demonstration videos are pretty convincing and the science behind them seems solid. I'm surprised this SuperTruck project didn't try to incorporate something like the Air Tabs in the design to further increase efficiency.

KJ

p220sigman wrote:
I also have to wonder how the fairings covering the rear wheels will handle a blowout. Still, if they can come even close to these numbers in real world use, that will be a huge benefit for the trucking industry and drivers.

X2 - - I have my share of blow outs on big rigs, they take no prisoners ... I can assume that these trucks will REQUIRE the usage of virgin tires, NO CAPS..
Can't imagine the expense to repair or replace those wheel fairings ?

Darn, I had a 2006 jeep wrangler, I would have loved to have gotten 13 mpg...was lucky to break double figures, ouch. More efficient to go grocery shopping in the rv!

I also have to wonder how the fairings covering the rear wheels will handle a blowout. Still, if they can come even close to these numbers in real world use, that will be a huge benefit for the trucking industry and drivers.

ACZL wrote:
Personally, I think the mpg results by a semi mfr are flawed as all the tests seem to be done on flat roads. Test them along I-81 thru VI, PA & NY. Hills out west. Headwinds and crosswinds. Then see what they claim.

I agree, they are always going to optimize the test results. But, it's still better to get 13 MPG on a level road rather than 7 or 8.

I'm still waiting for a 30 MPG Suburban or Expedition. :)