The Volvo VNL, a heavy truck purpose-designed for North American roads
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
Well done to them. 10% fuel savings is massive for something that is already quite efficient.
----
Yes, yes, some fraud. Yes, yes, NOx emissions. But the fuel efficiency numbers were better than published.
A trucking company is also a trucker.
Also 5mpg is high for pulling an unawrodynamic load.
If safety is really a concern, why is it not a Cabover design? Aren't those supposed to be safer due to better visibility?
Short haul and in town they win with a tighter turn radius.
Old cab-overs were pretty much tin boxes and they were plentiful before the length laws in the USA were relaxed in the late 70's. After that happened the cabover in the USA died a pretty fast death and the only company to attempt a proper modern cabover design was Freightliner with their Argosy. Other than that maybe the Mack MH Ultraliner was decently modern introduced in the early 80's that replaced the F Model and WS series Cruiseliner.
Maybe it’s a trade of “better visibility” vs a “battering-ram with no front crumple zone”?
They have a lot of disadvantages like serviceability and driver comfort. I don't think that looks really figure into it, since a lot of truck purchasing is driven by businesses which would gladly run an absolute pig of a truck if it saved them money.
In IT that is called a spec bump, not a disruption.
The USA market supports a substantial truck hauling segment to fill the rail deficit. All they do is drive a thousand miles from warehouse A to warehouse B over and over, so aero between cab and trailer that restricts tight maneuvers doesn't matter, LRR tires start to make sense since they never spend significant time on lower speed surface streets, etc. It's not like the USA is going to update (much less upgrade) rail and that truck market is fully saturated and primarily cost sensitive, so actual disruption only adds risk.
It looks like there is a radio with buttons so I'm not so sure what the touchscreen does. Maybe it has a truck-specific satnav application which would be improvement on the truckers who use a car satnav and wind up sticking their truck under bridges and such.
Seems like we could help things a lot by adding this regulation to trucks in America. Slower == better fuel efficiency and safer too!
If you're looking for levers to tweak the system, this probably ain't the one.
Drivers are paid by the mile, if you drive faster your effective hourly pay goes up.
It's more complicated than that. Up to highway speeds, energy costs are dominated by mechanical losses like rolling resistance. Meanwhile engine efficiency is higher at particular engine speeds and power outputs, and higher gearing improves efficiency but only if the engine remains in its optimal efficiency range.
This implies there is an optimal speed before aerodynamic losses become dominant, but that speed increases based on various factors like the air viscosity and vehicle aerodynamics. So the optimal speed will be higher at higher altitudes (common in the western US) and higher for vehicles with better aerodynamics.
> Drivers are paid by the mile, if you drive faster your effective hourly pay goes up.
This is another type of efficiency. It does you little good to reduce your fuel costs by $100 if you increase your labor costs by $200.
The only type of road where a regulator would make sense is the kind of road where in the US a regulator makes no sense. Every other type of road already has speed limits at or below what a regulator would be set to.
(Bearing in mind that US highways are radically different from Europe's)
What I am familiar with is lots of curves, inclines, declines. The kind of road where a loaded truck going the limit easily flips into the cliff to the side on the slightest error.
US highways are (by design) very straight, very flat, and very long. And on the rare occasion they're not, there are already speed limits in place.
(It's not an exaggeration because there seem to be about 2 state patrol cars and they're always parked at Walmart getting coffee. If you want to drive 100 as private passenger vehicle, go right ahead. If you want to drive 85 with a rig full of cows, feel free. While Nevada and Montana lost their no speed limit statuses due to federal funding and regulations, but worked around it by issuing smaller penalties.)
That's because it will take something drastically different than upgrading the truck - either switching to a completely new type of tractor/trailer, or switching to a different mode of transportation entirely.
Long-haul transport has been economically incentivized for a good return on fuel cost since forever, unlike the typical four-wheeler configuration most of us drive. The trucks are pretty much maxed out on performance that they're able to do.
I should lastly add, maxed out on performance when balanced against maintenance. Like, I could put a very performant F1-type high-tech engine in one, and possibly eke out some performance gains. But the overall schedule and cost will negate any fuel savings, not to mention the added hidden environmental burden of maintaining exotic frail engines.
This would just be a flat rejection to any engine modifications at all. I suspect they would still be just as reliable and no more exotic than any other engine.
And if want to go down the route of unmaintainable, I think we should discuss electric trucks. Each part is coded to work only with specific parts, insane costs to repair/maintain, no real standardization to any part, quite dangerous to work on, etc. The environmental burden of those is going to be insane.
Not a flat rejection to any engine modifications, but an acknowledgement that meaningful and maintainable engine modifications have already been implemented.
I'll say it again: performance and efficiency have to be balanced against cost, a large part of which is maintenance. There's nothing like simple capitalistic profit math calculations in a business setting to separate what really works from imagination, pointing to the intersection of gains vs cost. The operators have done the math, they have been ready for anything that moves the needle significantly to better profit for quite a while, but apparently it will take something more than upgrading the truck.
In the last 10 years alone, engine efficiency gains are really being made. I work with people who literally do this stuff. Not all improvements that can be made have yet been made. It was just 2007 that VVT was used in Caterpillar diesel engines [1].
> I'll say it again: performance and efficiency have to be balanced against cost, a large part of which is maintenance.
Most engines are getting better maintenance wise. My 10 year old diesel has a significant number of sensors that allow it to predict issues before significant maintenance is required. These kinds of improvements should significantly improve reliability.
> The operators have done the math, they have been ready for anything that moves the needle significantly to better profit for quite a while, but apparently it will take something more than upgrading the truck.
It's a little more complex than that, it will be investment vs return. If anybody can innovate in this area, Volvo are a good candidate. I personally liked their (petrol) modular engine design [2]. I personally liked the B5254T3 with the Ford modifications.
Tellingly, Cat doesn't do on-road diesel engines anymore, and hasn't for years... largely due to the inability to produce maintainable, efficient engines and meet legislative demands for clean air. My opinion, they could've stayed in the game but saw where the game was headed and decided to let others take the pain. Old Cat 13 and 15 engines were sought after for a time after production stopped, exactly because of their reputation for reliability and maintainability. The most notable changes in the diesel engine scene lately has not been VVT but instead the bolt-on addition of SCR for Tier 4 legislation, which does indeed make the emissions cleaner (when it works) but at the expense of maintainability.
> If anybody can innovate in this area, Volvo are a good candidate.
I appreciate the enthusiasm and I agree there may be engine improvements yet to be made, but I am quite wary of anyone saying significant improvements are ahead while not costing the owner or the supply system more in total over the long run.
The trailer's leading edge is, well, a large, flat, un-aerodynamic rectangle. Lots of potential for aero improvements there. I sometimes see boat-tails etc attached to trailers, but my understanding is that they are usually attached (an unattached at destination) by tractor owner, as trailer owner doesn't pay for fuel costs. Could be wrong on that though.
Euro trucks which seem to be mostly Scania are V8 diesel vs US straight 6, Euro can be 800hp vs US 400hp since the Euro trucks can haul 40 tonne vs US 36 tonne max.Euro trucks many seem to be automatic vs USA all manual(?), have air ride suspension.
But you're right about the equipment which is better