Why are semi trucks in the US and Europe so different? (2018)
nodum.org
nodum.org
I think it's pretty obvious and comes down to a few things:
* European trucks typically run shorter hauls, and do not require a bunk in the cab as often as multi-day cross-country runs.
* European Semi's need to accommodate all countries' roads and parking lots. This means the much wider range of nonstandard roads, docks, fueling stations and parking lots extends much farther towards the "small" side. Tight streets and parking lots - making it necessary for the truck to be shorter for tighter turns and parking compatibility.
* It has been proven that a cab-forward design is safer for avoiding accidents directly in front of the vehicles, something that is more focused on in the EU.
* The least obvious but possibly the most relevant reason why it remains: Having and ingraining differing standards makes it harder for a single competitor to play into the both markets. EU is largely locked down by EU manufacturers since any US manufacturers would have to significantly change their design and production to sell there.
The fuel economy point seems to be a distant consideration since the majority of drag economy comes from the trailer and not the tractor.
There is a maximum vehicle length though, and a maximum weight, the former ensures vehicle maneuverability, the latter serves road stability, bridge specifications, optimized no-waste parking provisions for pass-through parking spots in said truck stops edit: and ferry capacity. Ireland, Finland are connected by Ferry.
Manufacturing is pretty much internationalized, reusing parts and designs globally. Freightliner and Daimler are one company, for example.
Fuel economy is indeed a point, albeit the combo of trailer and truck define the overall fuel economy. As the trailer usually is equivalent to a standard 40ft container, the ideal truck has a boring standard form, too.
The text is German, the pictures are self explanatory-ish though wrt optimal and sub optimal wind résistance: https://en.vda.de/dam/vda/publications/FAT-SCHRIFTENREIHE%20...
There is something like a 70-90% parts commonality between a sleeper cabover and a conventional tractor, indeed - the only parts that differ are body, frame, and a couple interior pieces - even drivetrains are shared - and commonly shared between europe and NA - though European engines do not have the best reputation among US drivers (neither the Volvo or Mercedes Class 8 engine is well thought of - parts are expensive and take a long time, and sadly they're needed with alarming frequency). Indeed, many interior parts can be shared between a cabover and conventional truck, including the dash, and most of the interior appointments.
I typically do this in incognito windows as I do not always want for instance English and Italian results.
For example, a 2mx2mx0.5m pack can be slotted between the cabin and trailer.
A 2mx6mx0.25cm can be laid on the roof ?
Etc..
(I have seen demos of an Australian truck where the fossil engine is removed, and the pack is inserted from the front.)
The maximum length of an articulated vehicle in Germany (and most of europe) is 16.5m or 54 ft. [1]
The maximum length of a vehicle in California is 65 ft. California is one of the more restrictive states when it comes to vehicle length simply because of the age of the road network.
The longest vehicle you'll see in the states are turnpike doubles, which are around 130 ft long, the longest total permitted vehicle length in Europe is 65 ft.
The US used cabovers before vehicle length rules were liberalized, and thats why we don't anymore, drivers prefer conventional trucks, the ride better, largely handle better, and are safer for the driver.
[1] https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/dimensions...
Sort of.
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/legal-truck-a...
The STAA (Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982) trucks can have unlimited length cabs but are primarily limited to interstates and marked state routes.
So while yes, I used California's state limit as an easy from of comparison, because it is one of more restrictive western states - you're correct in that the STAA allows a longer tractor. In the end, the rules are lightly enforced - but the state limits guide the total length of combination. It's why (for example) you almost never see doubles being pulled by anything other than a day cab.
There is also the weight factor - even if you could legally have 90ft trailers and 25ft cabs, it would probably put you over the weight limit for many roadways and negate the savings.
Personally I'd optimize a bit more for everyone else's safety, since you know, there's more of them. Plus a semi is a multi-ton missile going 90kmph.
What makes the road network in CA so old compared to eastern states that had roads built so much earlier?
A lot of highways in California have warnings like "no services for 100 miles" and you won't encounter a lot of other vehicles (similar to Nevada and Oregon adjacent).
It's pretty natural both have somewhat differing regulations in regards to transportation.
One non obvious thing in article; apparently up until 1986 both US and Europe had a strict limit on length of trailer + truck, which is a clear incentive to shorter cabs (gets you more trailer). In 86 US relaxed this, correlates pretty well with the fall off on cab-over designs.
Do you have any idea why dump trucks make them self so much longer without providing any more load capacity?
Edit: Here is an example. You could fit another truck in the space between the truck and the trailer: https://d2uhsaoc6ysewq.cloudfront.net/53248/Dump-Trucks-West...
As for load, these trucks are completely loaded, there is no waste. This is simply because the things that a tipper transports (bitumen, dirt, grain, gravel etc.) are very dense. Load limits, at least in Australia, are based on the amount of axles under the vehicle, so the only way to increase the load capacity of these trucks is to increase axle count. Example: https://www.aeitransport.com.au/biggest-load-to-be-moved-in-...
The image of the truck and dog you linked seems especially long. This might be a specialised setup for roadworks, where the driver can actually tip the load (in a controlled manner) through the drawbar and drive the dog over the top of it. The longer drawbar would leave room for the tipping body on the truck to raise completely, and also lower the angles experienced by the hitch if the driver offloads too much material between the truck and dog.
My father and grandfather spent a lot of time reading the laws and charts every time they'd build out a new truck or trailer to try and maximize what they could haul. More axels allows for more weight, that seems obvious, but more distance is required between the truck and trailer as well.
It gets to be a really fun problem when one state wants a tongue/drawbar length of 28' and the neighboring state says that is too long and only wants 16'. What to do? Make the length adjustable and switch it over at the state line.
The last and biggest combo they ran was over 100' long, 9 axels, 34 tires and hauled 80,000 pounds. I don't remember the gross weight.
But trucking in Europe is a mess with massive companies squeezing truckers and importing cheaper workers from wherever to keep salaries low and conditions shitty.
At least one sector where Europe out-big-corps US?
> makes it harder for a single competitor to play into the both markets
I don't think this is the case, because many of the top European and American brands are owned by the same conglomerates. For example Paccar owns DAF in Europe and Kenworth and Peterbilt in America.
I find it hard to believe. There are tons of trucks, having multi-day cross-country runs. I know a few truckers, they all have. They sleep in their cabs. Sometimes there are 2 truckers, so they can swap whenever limits reached.
I see trucks from different countries any time I hit the road. If you ride on German autobahn, there is a never-ending stream of trucks from different countries.
IMO it's entirely down to the road networks. Driving across the US is like driving across one very broad road network. Driving across Europe is like driving on many fragmented, narrow road networks.
There is a big difference between the motorways in a country like the Netherlands vs those in Moldova [0]
There is often also vastly different regulations in terms of vehicle safety requirements, and many other differences, the combination of which also leads to quite different per capita traffic deaths [1]
[0] https://landgeist.com/2021/09/07/the-best-and-worst-roads-in...
[1] https://www.euronews.com/2018/12/07/which-countries-in-europ...
Ironic, because back in the 70's when there were more CoE designs driving around in the US, it was generally known through crash tests that CoE cab trucks were a lot less safe than conventional cab trucks in front-end collisions because of the driver's distance to the collision.
If CoE trucks have gotten safer in front-end collisions, it's because a lot of engineering work has been done to mitigate this old problem.
Common perception in America (contrary to actual testing) believed having all that bulk in front made a conventional truck safer.
> Ironic, because back in the 70's when there were more CoE designs driving around in the US, it was generally known through crash tests that CoE cab trucks were a lot less safe than conventional cab trucks in front-end collisions
That's not ironic: safety in collisions from one direction and safety for avoiding collisions from the same direction are very different and often opposed things.
Back then we barely had seat belts, let alone airbags, adaptive cruise control, automated braking in case of collision, blind spot detectors, etc.
Furthermore truck logistics in the USA is mainly based on FTL (full truck load), which means the truck just drives from A to B. In Europe LTL (less than truck load) is more common, which means pickup and delivery on multiple stops. This requires a better maneuverability, hence shorter trucks.
Another factor unmentioned is the amount of independent truckers in the US who own their trucks and who primarily do longhaul sorties spanning a week or more. Can't find any data on this but it is a very commonplace thing in the US for truckers to live in their trucks more than their homes and I'm not sure that is the case in the EU.
They could easily have multiple destinations they drive to one after the other, with different cargo each time
While we're on the topic of trucks, I've always had this pointless desire to get a non-synchronous transmission truck driver's licence. I just think it'd be fun learning to drive an 18 speed crash box with double clutching and clutch brakes - something I imagine will soon be a thing of the past. Regrettably, there's no real reason for me to get it.
For now, the rational part of my brain is keeping this in check.
I guarantee you would quickly abandon this double clutching "fun" at real trucking job because it is very tiring when you need to change gears a lot for example when there are a lot of intersections and turns. AFAIK most/all drivers in USA don't use clutch at all (for anything other than starting and stopping the vehicle) in non-synchronized transmission trucks for that very reason. Switching gears without clutch is easier and faster when you learn how to do it smoothly.
That being said... I strongly suggest you to try either American or Euro Truck simulator games. If you have a steering wheel and gearbox controllers for your computer, you can indeed have a lot of fun and gain some gear shifting and big truck driving skills at much lower cost than in real life while still having kind of real feeling.
I have a not-so-old Audi with a known-bad gearbox w/ faulty synchros and because it is a turbo you really can’t upshift in that band when/where the gears are lined up without losing too much power so I have learned to time how long I should wait in neutral (for the RPMs to drop) before completing the upshift. Non-sequential downshifting after slowing down from a higher gear is much harder though - you really have to play it by ear based off the sound/RPMs and the current speed both. And it’s a six speed with considerably less slop than the old Beetles used to have.
A big example:
> Another advantage of a conventional cab design is that the truck can be more economical. Surely they usually pull heavier loads, but if there were two trucks, one a cab-over and another one a conventional cab design, and they had the same powertrain and the same cargo, the conventional cab truck would most likely use less fuel. Of course, that is just in theory – in reality there are too many factors to consider.
I don't know... power, load and fuel economy is the kind of data that's extremely available about motor vehicles... this is something we can't figure out? Or were they just writing hearsay to push content and get clicks? ("Subscribe to our facebook. Loads of content coming soon!")
More important to fuel economy is maximizing cargo per trip, as having 20% more cargo in the trailer has no impact on aerodynamics and minimal contribution to rolling resistance and acceleration losses. This is the main argument against the length restrictions in the EU. Longer trailers + more aerodynamic tractors would lead to a significant increase in fuel economy - albeit at the cost of road safety: EU records nearly identical deaths per year for trucking related accidents as the US - around 5000 - but has 300% as many trucks on the road and 50% more population than the US.
I think this is a very uncharitable interpretation. It has been decades in the US and Canada since cab overs fell out of style and thus you can't buy ones that take the same trade-offs as your average conventional truck. Comparing trucks designed for completely different regulatory, geographical, and practical constraints isn't going to net something useful so we have to make estimated guesses. It seems like it would be similar to comparing the fuel economy of an an unladen F-150 with an unladen F-350; They might do similar things but in practice there are so many capability trade-offs that it isn't a particularly interesting thing to do. As they said:
> that is just in theory – in reality there are too many factors to consider.
[1] https://www.trucksales.com.au/editorial/details/2020-truck-s...
I imagine the composition is different on, say, the Nullarbor plain.
Image of such a setup: https://imgur.com/xUdS3wD taken from the trucksim subreddit.
> For now, the rational part of my brain is keeping this in check.
You're not alone! I have the exact same desire.
I have a lot of friends that are recreationally pilots or boat captains so I don't think it's that strange.
Look out. I know a guy who caved in and learned. Then decided he doesn't like computers all that much and he doesn't _really_ need that software engineer salary, especially if he can cut on rent by sleeping in his truck.
There's something appealing in the physical labour of feeling and manipulating the clutch and gearbox, that a simulator might not capture, but I will it check it out.
The opponents don't move, there is no clipping of obstacles, and once you cross the finish line you are greeted with a screen proudly saying "You're Winner!"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rigs:_Over_the_Road_Racing
Driving a road ranger gearbox is a lot of fun. And a jake brake makes an awesome sound! I agree with the comment below me - you almost never use the clutch, just match revs to gear. It’s a nice skill, you can do it in any manual vehicle but you’re more likely to torch the transmission in the average car - Toyota landcruisers are good practice though
EDIT in response to reply: I actually don't think it's obvious that if you get C, M1, and A separated by a month that you should do 1+2+3 tests but that if you get C+C separated by years you do 1+0 tests.
I once had a commercial license paid for by a grant program as part of that job. I had to give it up when I moved states and no reason to redo it. I regret it a lot because it was useful in many ways. Probably different in Australia, but having a odd set of skills never hurt my life.
I suspect you could find a Formula Dodge or Formula Ford racing series with an intro class if you just want to learn the gearbox aspects, plus then you can learn to rotate a car with the steering wheel, the gas, and the brake pedal. ;)
I wouldn’t get the license though as even minor traffic violations can become a pain in the butt.
[ Edit for clarification: ] I have created some confusion with this statement. For clarification diesel engines never had engine braking due to the lack of a throttle plate but this has been worked around with add-ons using different techniques. On a big-rig this is jake-brakes. On smaller modern vehicles this is usually a small turbo or an exhaust baffle. The operator of a modern diesel vehicle will effectively experience engine braking when they let off the throttle. On older diesel pickups and cars there was no engine braking.
First time I hear about this. I've driven and owned plenty of diesel vehicles in my life and diesel engines definitely do have engine braking(unless it's different in semis? but I don't see why it would be - just leave it in gear and let it slow down?)
At least that's my experience with the cars I used to own.
Edit: For the record, my experience is for 4-strokes diesel engines. Apparently, 2-strokes are still in use in the US.
Normal diesels do engine braking just fine, but not aggressive enough to shed speed on a long descent without over-revving, and you really don't want to do that with a diesel engine.
Although I guess Mercedes was still pretty reliable back in the 80's.
I'm always astonished how US Americans try to justify poor engineering with "advantage of simplicity". It's like arguing that you want to program using punch cards because that makes you feel closer to the machine and you have a "physical" copy of your programs.
The fact of the matter is that there's very, very, few secrets in the automotive and heavy equipment industries. If someone is or isn't doing something it's because they've run the numbers and they don't think it pencils out for what they build and who they sell to.
That's one of the big problems with internet blogs. They do a bunch of Googling and speculation and that's it. Laughably, they sometimes they even call themselves "journalists."
How hard would it have been to go to a truck stop and sit at the counter and ask some truckers? They know all about trucks. And after being along all day, truckers love to talk.
If you're afraid of people, get a $10 CB radio from Goodwill and talk to them on the radio.
It's the same as how you could ask people why SF doesn't have gigabit fiber Internet for $60 when Bucharest does for $30, and people on the Internet will make up all sorts of reasons. However, SF does have gigabit fiber Internet. Explaining is easy. Truth-seeking is hard.
Speed perhaps explains the lack of power steering. In multiple ways.
More macho - what a laugh! Keep it stupid simple.
I have not driven a truck like that personally, but I know what sort of difference all the modern assistance systems have done on my cross-continental drives. Previously a 12 hour drive would leave me absolutely exhausted, like I'd need a full day to recover after that - in a modern car with lane assist and adaptive cruise and comfortable seats and what not - I arrive relaxed every time. Long dull stretches of road don't take such a mental toll anymore.
I imagine the exact same principle applies to trucks.
However, a 4 or 5 hour drive on roads in the UK in an automatic modern car and I am completely exhausted.
At least for some of us, the road conditions are a far larger impact than the features of the vehicle.
"Maximum length of a truck with a semi-trailer in Europe is 18.75 meters. Some countries have some exceptions, but generally that is the rule. In order to use the maximum of this length for the cargo the tractor unit has to be as short as possible. The best way to achieve that is to mount the cabin over the engine."
Cab-overs have no other advantages, and everything else the article talks about is a side-effect of the length limit.
That's not true. Lower overall length is an advantage for maneuvering in city streets and parking lots, which is why you see medium duty COE vehicles (mostly trucks but semi-tractors as well) in some parts of the US making local deliveries. It also provides a visibility advantage that reduces the accident rate.
It's really frustrating how the US has too many urban streets designed for accommodating oversized trucks. It's really dangerous because the side affect of accommodating huge trucks is high speeds of passenger vehicles.
https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/desi...
There are definitely other advantages, such as that cabovers can generally navigate into tighter spots because of it's tighter turning radius. Yard space is usually very limited and roads more narrow and windy than America, so this is definitely a benefit.
I've seen some crazy tight turns on some unreasonably tiny country roads here in the UK that I can't imagine could be done with a vehicle 2 meters longer.
Considering how expensive those things are, who is affording the new trucks in NL? Is it because they are company owned instead of individual (owner-operator)?
Where do the worn out NL semis go?
Eastern Europe, if I had to guess. I can't say specifically about semis, but in my home country of Romania I've seen quite a lot of Dutch clunker vans/small trucks roaming the streets (you can tell they're Dutch because they still have some of the original branding decals of the companies that used to own them).
I'm actually kind of curious if anyone ever made a documentary or something about the trip those vans and trucks make, feels like a hidden economy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_inspection_in_the_Unit...
Eastern Europe. You need to have a Euro 5 or Euro 6 diesel engine to be allowed in many Western European cities as a commercial truck. So old trucks aren't viable.
That is pretty interesting. A few weeks ago, there was a thread here on HN talking about the Port of Long Beach backlog and a comment mentioning the scarcity of trucks with the clean idle certification.
At about the same time, I took a road trip along the Interstate - Illinois, Indiana, Ohio - and paid attention to the trucks. Somewhere around 90% of them had the "California Clean Idle" sticker on them - and none of them had California plates. Even on trucks with Ontario plates (you see a lot of Canadian trucks in the upper midwest).
My best explanation is that the long-haul routes crisscrossing North America have all the newest, cleanest, most modern vehicles and once they reach a certain age they are sold into the places where they don't drive long distances anymore.
African countries
Lots of carries take good care of their equipment.
You can also be a carrier and just be one guy and a truck … so there is a lot of variety.
Most transport is done by 3PL's who will lease the trucks and hire the drivers.
The same is true in the USA.
I wonder why owner-operator truck drivers are more common in USA than Europe? Is it an externality of our lack of worker protections and safety net?
It's probably more due to the fact that many of the roads in the USA were built a lot more recently, and were built to make it convenient to use larger tractor-trailers (and not so much for other road users). In Europe, truck operators had to fit into the existing road system.
The Volvo VNL 2021 costs around 174.000$
That's the new model shown in the youtube video in the article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nY7Xfu47vw&feature=emb_logo
Given semi-trucks are so expensive and heavely used I wonder why more companies don't focus autonomous vehicles for semi-trucks rather than robotaxis.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_rail_tr...
basically if it's worth it to put it on slow transportation "coast to coast" we have a single continuous boat path between the North Sea and the Mediterranean Sea, whereas the US does have to think twice when sending a ton of things from LA to Texas, it's either train or Panama Canal.
https://bestride.com/news/the-kamaz-that-saved-ewan-mcgregor...
The boxy design must cost a fortune in fuel
Think a typical "teardrop" airfoil shape, they are blunt at the front and gently taper off at the rear.
In fact most cars are more aerodynamic in reverse than they are going forwards for exactly this reason - on most cars the front end comes in more gradually (the hood portion comes in first, then enlarges to the passenger section) whereas the rear end is usually much blunter (to maximize storage space).
> most cars are more aerodynamic in reverse than they are going forwards
I tried to find more about it, but I could only find two sources. The first was a Mythbusters episode about a particular Porsche, and the second was a Top Gear episode about a different car. Can you point me to an article that substantiates this?
If you taper properly before the flat cutoff a squared off back (Honda insight is the quintessential example) is fine because the real turbulence happens a few feet behind the vehicle. At speed a blunt (even if it's rounded) nose just isn't great no matter how you cut it but with careful attention to corners, shape transitions and whatnot you can mitigate that quite a lot (modern crossovers with their bulbous front bodywork make heavy use of this).
This is a subject with a million gotcha's that add up to a lot. Be weary of anyone peddling rule of thumb solutions.
Bikers do this too BTW if you follow the sport, makes for interesting team type tactics.
There is some thought that automated road convoys of trucks following closely might generate fuel savings this way as well.
Here's a study which pretty much confirms my idea of slightly rounding off the nose would be the best thing https://www.transportenvironment.org/wp-content/uploads/2021...
Image here: https://ibb.co/FgZvz6p
The article itself states there are bigger benefits to be had modifying the trailer:
"Further aerodynamic improvements are possible, notably on the trailer. For example aerodynamic add-ons, such as tails and side wings, could help deliver even higher significant fuel savings. Their potential is explored in another T&E briefing. [23]"
The referenced article: https://www.transportenvironment.org/wp-content/uploads/2021...
That article shows a variety of tail modifications which have higher effectiveness than rounding the front.
It also looks like truck in EU are limited to 55mph. When I tow our trailer (just with a normal vehicle), there's minimal difference between fuel economy between 45 and 60. Significant drops come into play at higher speeds.
A lot of long-distance American tractor trailers deploy fold-out cones on their back doors to improve their aerodynamics while driving. They fold up for low speed driving and loading.
Also, fold-out flaps under the trailer for the same reason.
Is it something with state by state safety regulations, like prohibitions on protruding structures that aren't part of the main body? Or differently-defined overall length restrictions? Does a given long haul truck have them deployed in the middle of the country, but then they're removed before getting to the coastal states?
In vehicles, there's a lot of additional, interesting factors at play - like engine efficiency.
https://en.vda.de/dam/vda/publications/FAT-SCHRIFTENREIHE%20...
And the front aerodynamics dépend more on the details than it's length. Some aerodynamic designs have shockingly steep fronts.
The most effective aerodynamic changes are on the back though.
Actually, I think I just saw a GPT-3 application that allowed you to "lengthen" text.
And a browser extension that shrinks it. And the AI wars continue.
I'm from Spain but moved to Mexico 13 years ago. Here it's somewhat common to hear truck noises like when doing engine braking. I don't recall ever hearing that in Spain.
Here, the more expensive hydraulic retarders are the most common brakes (additional to the standard brakes on the wheels, of course).
[1]: https://www.verkehrsrundschau.de/nachrichten/nfz-fuhrpark/ne...
This is so widespread that any company which doesn't do it is likely less profitable than all the rest which do overload hence they have to overload to be competitive.
I like to frame this in terms of an overruling pragmatism in mexican culture, as long as the truck still goes everything is just fine.
I suppose overloaded trucks (under more stress) are louder.
When I visit Juarez, I'm always surprised to see all of the used school buses that are no longer considered road-worthy in America that area used for all kinds of things. Very often they leave the names of the American schools on the side.
> Maximum length of a truck with a semi-trailer in Europe is 18.75 meters. Some countries have some exceptions, but generally that is the rule. In order to use the maximum of this length for the cargo the tractor unit has to be as short as possible. The best way to achieve that is to mount the cabin over the engine.
That's it. Headline with a question and that one paragraph. This article to me is an example of why articles on the modern web are bad. All the rest is there to keep you on the page longer and get better SEO.
Why did they do that? Ugh. I'd much rather have the shorter and safer trucks around than the current US designs.
>> In Europe Semi-trucks are limited to 90 km/h
55 saves lives.
>> Cities in US have wide streets and interstate highways are very straight and wide.
#notallcities Too bad Boston doesn't have the authority to regulate truck designs allowed in the city. Or maybe they do and just aren't doing it because of the economic impact of requiring transshipping from highway semis to local delivery trucks outside the city. I wish they would anyway.
Actually that's not true. [1]
In 1995 the Republican Congress repealed the 55-mile-per-hour federal speed
limit law. At the time, the highway safety lobby and consumer advocacy
groups made apocalyptic predictions about 6,400 increased deaths and a million
additional injuries if posted speed limits were raised. Ralph Nader even said
that “history will never forgive Congress for this assault on the sanctity of
human life.”
But almost all measures of highway safety show improvement, not more deaths
and injuries since 1995. Despite the fact that 33 states raised their speed
limits immediately after the repeal of the mandatory federal speed limit,
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported last October that
“the traffic death rate dropped to a record low level in 1997.” Moreover, the
average fatality rate even fell in the states that raised their speed limits.
Higher speed limits have not caused one million more auto injuries. In fact,
in 1997 there were 66,000 fewer road injuries than in 1995, the year before
the speed limits were raised. The injury rate per 100 million vehicle miles
traveled fell to its lowest level ever recorded in 1997. If the injury rate
on the roads had been as high in 1997 as it had been in 1995, approximately
17,000 more Americans would have been injured on the roads.
No, it doesn't. It was a pointless law that was seldom enforced and blatantly ignored. It really only served as yet another reason for authorities to pull someone over due to profiling. Traffic is much safer if you have everyone traveling at or near the same speed, rather than having a wide differential on the road. It's also why US interstates have minimum speeds. US highways would be safer if the speed limits were set to something that actually makes sense for the road. I gather from your comment you're east coast centric. There are humongous parts of the US after you get west of the Appalachians where 75-85 MPH speed limits are reasonable and would be safe on interstates.
Safety is much more than a catchy slogan.
I'm not sure that it it does based on accident statistics, and probably the best thing they could do to increase road safety is to remove the truck speed limit in my state, either let everyone go 70mph or everyone go 60mph, but don't intentionally increase interactions between cars and trucks by giving them different speed limits.
One thing 55mph does do is help with gas mileage. I drive a hybrid and get around 48 mpg at 55mph and 41 mpg at 70mph. This is a relatively aerodynamic sedan, I'd imagine that the difference is even greater for trucks and big SUV's.
Unfortunately the city doesn’t do a good job enforcing this requirement, so we have a few dozen people die each year due to trucks that don’t fit on the street hitting a pedestrian or bicyclist.
My grandmother's best friend, when I was a child, was killed by a truck running over her while she was in a crosswalk (legally crossing the street). The light turned green while she was in front of the truck and he ran her over. They are so tall and set back so far, many of them can't see a person walking right in front of it.
Boston most definitely bans trucks on certain roads. That’s their authority shining through.
I'm hoping the need to extend EV range brings US highway speeds down to something reasonable, but I'm not optimistic.
At least in Europe
The other thing to consider is driving distance and how it drives design. I would imagine the count of trucks that need sleeper compartments is much higher in the United States, and adopting a design that keeps parts more consistent for sleeper cabin and non-sleeper models probably has manufacturing benefits.
[1] https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/legal-truck-a...
I quite liked the other information provided. You suggesting that an article should contain less information seems quite silly. You know what you could do? Don't read the rest and you won't have an issue....
Anything about if the difference would remain if the regulation wasn't in place is just speculation. It's like saying, if C wasn't a hard limit for travel speed, would we have space ships that travel faster than light?
My favorite truck was an Isuzu model (don't remember which) that was as elegant as it could possibly be for driving on narrow mountain roads in southern Appalachia (I covered an area surrounding the Smokey Mountains in TN/NC).
These things are easy to overlook if you’re just using diesel, but they matter a lot for electric. A cab-over semi might have a combined drag coefficient of over 0.7, whereas the Tesla Semi is around 0.35. So the 500 mile range of the Tesla Semi may be just 375 miles if using a conventional European cab-over design. That reduces the life of the battery as well, increases the proportion of the time spent charging, the cost per mile to charge, etc. And it can’t just be compensated with a bigger battery, either, because the vehicle is already near or at the weight limit.
Drag actually matters.
>They pretty much refuse to enforce laws meant to make NYC [undeliverable by standard trailers]
Good.
And yet here’s a fun fact: it’s actually possible to buy food and necessary items in Manhattan. The NYPD ignores the law but the national chain stores that cover the island do not. It’s actually so easy to make deliveries and pickups that those stores are well stocked and serve residential neighborhoods that are literally some of the densest on earth.
Turns out humans have ways of moving stuff around without 53’ trailers.
It's nice of you to opine on how traffic enforcement should happen in a place you (clearly) don't live. The NYPD choose not to enforce traffic laws across the board, and it leads to some dire consequences. In any case, whether or not longer trucks would be better for New York, the decision has already been made that they're not allowed. It's not up to the NYPD to second guess the law.
Driving around double-trailers in Indiana always made me anxious, so I had to see this unnerving statement in its reality, and I found this article [0] that talks about Australian road trains. Evidently they are used on single lane roads in the Outback, which makes sense. But, I am still wondering, as there must be some warehouse to transition to single-trailer loads or else they wouldn’t be able to safely do last-mile delivery?
A bunch of American states permit triple trailers. Each individual trailer is a little shorter, but seeing all three going around a corner is a bit unnerving. Especially if they're heavy-load trailers that haul stuff like gravel or ore, because those are much longer to spread the weight out.
"Maximum length of a truck with a semi-trailer in Europe is 18.75 meters." so length is at a premium that cannot be outweighed by the other benefits of the "classic" US style design.
Higher speeds and bigger roads are other reasons to have the US truck in the US but not Europe (among many other advantages of the design) but the stated fact that "European style" trucks were much more common in the US when the US still had length limits indicates that the length limit is the deciding factor.
https://www.ozy.com/the-new-and-the-next/german-roads-are-sm...
Source: my childhood best friend's dad was a truck driver (not artic though) and a day out in the lorry was one of the best things to do in the school holidays.
EDIT: I notice the linked article "why are they called semis" actually calls them articulated.
I find this very similar to US vs EU fridges: US ones are metallic, rounded and bulky, European ones are, in new kitchens, integrated behind cabinet doors that look the same as the other cabinets, a more minimalist design.
But then why does software/apps from the US look so minimalist like the European fridges?
However, try driving the spectacularly scenic US550 road through the San Juans in southern Colorado, and note the completely regular semi-trucks negotiating this insane mountain road. I am sure this is not the only example.
Most comments in this thread are underestimating this point. I grew up in Italy (where virtually all trucks are cabover), and I now live in Australia (where conventional cabs are common). The road conditions are completely different. Can you imagine a conventional driving through Florence? Obviously it wouldn't be ideal.
Till the regulation is gone, everything else is just speculation about what would happen without it.
I had this same question for years :)
But I'm not quite sure I'm satisfied that this explains why they are so different. It is hard for me to believe that American semi-trucks are more fuel efficient than European ones (fuel is so much more expensive in Europe!), but this article seems to imply that they are.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=bj+mccay+bear&ia=web
Yes, the truck is cab-on-top as well. :-D
Seems like the engine forward design could be made safer with the ubiquitous vehicle cameras of today, but neither the article nor the Volvo video make mention of them.
Wow! That's slower than almost every freeway speed limit in the United States, barring some urban spots.
I've only been a passanger in an EU semi and I was itching to drive it, because just how high you were and how much you could see! It reminded me of the Homer's car from the Simpsons - ugly but you can't help but wonder how pleasant it would be to operate.
Where, exactly? Do an image search for "China truck" or "Japan truck", and they're cab-over-engine.
When I worked in transportation, people said they faded away because of crash-protection.
My favorite cab-over semi is from the minibike chase scene in Terminator 2
The US had cab-overs too back when we had length restrictions but the marginally more expensive operating cost and greatly reduced operator comfort resulted in conventional trucks taking over once those restrictions were lifted. Applications where length matters a lot still use cabovers.
Also the /r/Truckers/ subreddit has users post their setup sometimes. But usually those are either "look what I was able to cook" or "check out my gaming setup".
https://www.peterbilt.com/trucks/highway/model-579
Euro trailers appear to be shorter and probably carry lighter loads, so they need fewer tires and maybe do not need to be adjustable. But not really sure.
The EU standard is 40 tonnes (88000 lbs), usually in 2/3 or 3/2 axle combinations (2/3 usually includes a lifting axle).
Some countries have higher limits e.g. Finland allows up to 76t with special permits