How is this not too long? Eighty feet is the legal limit. The trailer is 53'. so a tractor would need to be <27' to the kingpin. This looks way longer than that, with that long snout.
How is this not too long? Eighty feet is the legal limit. The trailer is 53'. so a tractor would need to be <27' to the kingpin. This looks way longer than that, with that long snout.
EvanR wrote: How is this not too long? Eighty feet is the legal limit. The trailer is 53'. so a tractor would need to be <27' to the kingpin. This looks way longer than that, with that long snout.
he also wants to put some aero stuff off the back of the trailer, too.. i've seen a few trailers running down the interstate with some sort of angled skirts off the back of the trailer to smooth out airflow over the end of the trailer and i always wonder how they can legally do that..
I have been hearing rumors of them allowing 63 foot trailers soon
stuart in mn wrote: What would you think if you saw this coming up from behind in your rear view mirror...
If I was in a Miata I would get into a head on with it, wiggle up the inter-cooler tubes, and make cute babies with it that would eventually emerge from the behemoth at 55 per- Ready to Roll.
But seriously. There are many routs that are strictly from big yard to big yard. It is more than a niche- we will see something like this in production.
wonder how that low nose will deal with plowing thru a foot of heavy, wet snow..
stuart in mn wrote: What would you think if you saw this coming up from behind in your rear view mirror...
If done in black...
I've got to give the guy some credit, the numbers are impressive. Multiply that by the entire fleet of US trucks and you'd have impressive gains in efficiency. Forget the 13 MPG, even adding a MPG or two over their existing fuel economy would be impressive!
That is freaking awesome. I've got two friends who are engineers at Volvo/MACK powertrain. I'm going to show this to them.
dj06482 wrote: I've got to give the guy some credit, the numbers are impressive. Multiply that by the entire fleet of US trucks and you'd have impressive gains in efficiency. Forget the 13 MPG, even adding a MPG or two over their existing fuel economy would be impressive!
Considering the one box truck we had the place I used to work at could only get 11mpg... that is impressive. I wonder what you could do with one of those small 24foot box trucks?
So, when can we take the word "hypermiling" out back and shoot it? Can it be soon? Please?
I would rather see "stance" against the wall first.. followed by "stretch"
I know a couple of guys who own a trucking firm . Years ago (15 or more) they built a new terminal right next the freeway. The old one was about 15 miles down a secondary road. They told me the fuel savings on that 30 mile round trip every day for 90-100 trucks would make the payments on the new terminal and that was at 1990's prices. This thing has a lot of potential. Just look at how many trailers are skirted these days. You didn't see much of them 5 years ago.
mad_machine wrote: I would rather see "stance" against the wall first.. followed by "stretch"
Stance is a verb (albeit a general descriptor appropriated for a small subset of microcephalics, the same way "drift" has). Stretch is also a verb. Mile is not a verb.
"Hypermiling" makes my brain grind to a halt the same way "stall converter" does.
You'll need to log in to post.
