On last week's episode of Eddie Stobart Trucks and Trailers, they showed
driver Mark working with a new illegal-length trailer that they have been
given special dispensation to trial on UK roads, by the DoT. They said that
it was called an "Eco-trailer" because being some 2 metres longer than a
'standard' trailer, it would be able to carry nine more cages of Tesco
goods, which would mean less lorries on the road leading to a fuel and
pollution saving.

Fair enough, I thought. But later whilst giving it a bit more consideration,
I started to think about the 'not getting owt for nowt' principle, and
started to doubt whether there really is any 'free lunch' to be had here. If
the 'standard' trailer is about 13 m long, then this one at 2 m longer
represents about an extra sixth of a truck. So for every six of these new
trailers, you'd save one standard tractor unit and trailer. But then, you've
got to take into account that the extra 2 m of trailer is going to weigh
quite a bit, as is the extra axle and tyres that it had, and the extra
equipment to make the rear axles steerable so that it can get round
roundabouts, and manoeuvre in tight yards. On top of that, there will be the
additional frictional drag from the extra axle, plus the weight of the nine
extra cages, and the goods in them. Hauling those additional weights and
losses, is going to take more engine power, and will thus use more fuel. So
how much fuel usage advantage would really be gained from these extra long
trailers ? Any ? Rather less than was implied ? And as for reducing
pollution, I know that diesels aren't the cleanest of engines, but as far as
I am aware, they produce little or no carbon dioxide, which is the one that
the green mist brigade are terrified of, and only small amounts of carbon
monoxide, so is this just another case of adding the word "Eco" to the front
of some existing item, to justify getting what might be a contentious change
to that item, accepted ? Or am I just being cynical in thinking that if
Stobarts got the approval to roll this out across their fleet of
curtain-siders, they would save the wages of one sixth of their drivers ...
?

Arfa

On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 16:58:54 +0100, "Arfa Daily" wrote:

On last week's episode of Eddie Stobart Trucks and Trailers, they showed
driver Mark working with a new illegal-length trailer that they have been
given special dispensation to trial on UK roads, by the DoT. They said that
it was called an "Eco-trailer" because being some 2 metres longer than a
'standard' trailer, it would be able to carry nine more cages of Tesco
goods, which would mean less lorries on the road leading to a fuel and
pollution saving.

Fair enough, I thought. But later whilst giving it a bit more consideration,
I started to think about the 'not getting owt for nowt' principle, and
started to doubt whether there really is any 'free lunch' to be had here. If
the 'standard' trailer is about 13 m long, then this one at 2 m longer
represents about an extra sixth of a truck. So for every six of these new
trailers, you'd save one standard tractor unit and trailer. But then, you've
got to take into account that the extra 2 m of trailer is going to weigh
quite a bit, as is the extra axle and tyres that it had, and the extra
equipment to make the rear axles steerable so that it can get round
roundabouts, and manoeuvre in tight yards. On top of that, there will be the
additional frictional drag from the extra axle, plus the weight of the nine
extra cages, and the goods in them. Hauling those additional weights and
losses, is going to take more engine power, and will thus use more fuel. So
how much fuel usage advantage would really be gained from these extra long
trailers ? Any ? Rather less than was implied ? And as for reducing
pollution, I know that diesels aren't the cleanest of engines, but as far as
I am aware, they produce little or no carbon dioxide, which is the one that
the green mist brigade are terrified of, and only small amounts of carbon
monoxide, so is this just another case of adding the word "Eco" to the front
of some existing item, to justify getting what might be a contentious change
to that item, accepted ? Or am I just being cynical in thinking that if
Stobarts got the approval to roll this out across their fleet of
curtain-siders, they would save the wages of one sixth of their drivers ...
?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaust_gas

says the CO2 is very little different.


--
Regards, Paul Herber, Sandrila Ltd.
http://www.sandrila.co.uk/

Arfa Daily wrote:

am I just being cynical in thinking that if
Stobarts got the approval to roll this out across their fleet of
curtain-siders, they would save the wages of one sixth of their drivers ...

My thoughts exactly, companies only "care" about eco-bollox to the
extent it increases profits.

On 23/10/2012 16:58, Arfa Daily wrote:
On last week's episode of Eddie Stobart Trucks and Trailers, they showed
driver Mark working with a new illegal-length trailer that they have
been given special dispensation to trial on UK roads, by the DoT. They
said that it was called an "Eco-trailer" because being some 2 metres
longer than a 'standard' trailer, it would be able to carry nine more
cages of Tesco goods, which would mean less lorries on the road leading
to a fuel and pollution saving.

Fair enough, I thought. But later whilst giving it a bit more
consideration, I started to think about the 'not getting owt for nowt'
principle, and started to doubt whether there really is any 'free lunch'
to be had here. If the 'standard' trailer is about 13 m long, then this
one at 2 m longer represents about an extra sixth of a truck. So for
every six of these new trailers, you'd save one standard tractor unit
and trailer. But then, you've got to take into account that the extra 2
m of trailer is going to weigh quite a bit, as is the extra axle and
tyres that it had, and the extra equipment to make the rear axles
steerable so that it can get round roundabouts, and manoeuvre in tight
yards. On top of that, there will be the additional frictional drag from
the extra axle, plus the weight of the nine extra cages, and the goods
in them. Hauling those additional weights and losses, is going to take
more engine power, and will thus use more fuel. So how much fuel usage
advantage would really be gained from these extra long trailers ? Any ?
Rather less than was implied ? And as for reducing pollution, I know
that diesels aren't the cleanest of engines, but as far as I am aware,
they produce little or no carbon dioxide, which is the one that the
green mist brigade are terrified of, and only small amounts of carbon
monoxide, so is this just another case of adding the word "Eco" to the
front of some existing item, to justify getting what might be a
contentious change to that item, accepted ? Or am I just being cynical
in thinking that if Stobarts got the approval to roll this out across
their fleet of curtain-siders, they would save the wages of one sixth of
their drivers ... ?

At speed the main loss for a lorry will be air resistance. An extra bit
on the trailer won't add much to that. So yes, it'll use more fuel than
the shorter one, but not that much more, and if used wisely it'll use
less per unit delivered.

CO2 production by a diesel engine is pretty much directly proportional
to the amount of fuel used, and the main combustion products are CO2 +
water - not "little or no carbon dioxide" at all. CO2 isn't about
cleanliness of burning, it's just what gets produced when you burn a
carbon-based fuel with adequate oxygen.

Andy Burns wrote:
Arfa Daily wrote:

am I just being cynical in thinking that if
Stobarts got the approval to roll this out across their fleet of
curtain-siders, they would save the wages of one sixth of their
drivers ...

My thoughts exactly, companies only "care" about eco-bollox to the
extent it increases profits.

As the biggest single cost in haulage now is fuel, in this case, the two
coincide. Fuel consumption per lorry mile would probably increase by
about 5% or less, as most of the effort at motorway speed is overcoming
air resistance, and that would only show a marginal increase over the
normal units.

I'd expect fuel savings per ton/mile carried to be at least 5%, bearing
in mind that the Tesco lorries don't run anywhere near their maximum
permitted gross weight. That pays about half the drivers' wages,
according to the back of this envelope. The other half could be
recovered by decreasing the maximum speed of the lorries to 50mph from
the current 56mph.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 16:58:54 +0100, Arfa Daily wrote:

They said that it was called an "Eco-trailer" because being some 2
metres longer than a standard' trailer, it would be able to carry nine
more cages of Tesco goods, which would mean less lorries on the road
leading to a fuel and pollution saving.
snip
I started to think about the 'not getting owt for nowt' principle, and
started to doubt whether there really is any 'free lunch' to be had
here.

Very wise, and you highlight a lot of the variables that come into play.

I know that diesels aren't the cleanest of engines, but as far as
I am aware, they produce little or no carbon dioxide,

Er no, burning a carbon based fuel like diesel produces mostly CO2 and
H2O...

so is this just another case of adding the word "Eco" to the front
of some existing item, to justify getting what might be a contentious
change to that item, accepted ?

Possibly. I would expect the truck maker to have the official MPG figures
for that model on their website(*). IMHO what really matters is how much
is delivered for how much fuel consumed

Or am I just being cynical in thinking that if Stobarts got the
approval to roll this out across their fleet of curtain-siders, they
would save the wages of one sixth of their drivers ...

The might be able to reduce the work force a little but these big trucks
won't be able to get everywhere. Some places there is no access for even
a "standard" acrtic...

I suspect the drivers wages are small in comparison to the trucks fuel
bill. Lets say 10mpg (real mpg is probably lower) 1 hour at 56 mph is 5.6
gallons @ £6.30/gallon about £35/hour. I'd expect the drivers to get less
than half that rate, may be less than 1/3.

If you can deliver 20% more for the same fuel costs or even 20% more
goods for 15% more fuel it would still be "green"...

(*) Can't find it with a quick google. But didi find and interesting
document "EFFECTS OF PAYLOAD ON THE FUEL CONSUMPTION OF TRUCKS". That
gives a range fro about 15 mpg down to 6 mpg, unladen to fully laden.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 23/10/2012 19:56, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 16:58:54 +0100, Arfa Daily wrote:

They said that it was called an "Eco-trailer" because being some 2
metres longer than a standard' trailer, it would be able to carry nine
more cages of Tesco goods, which would mean less lorries on the road
leading to a fuel and pollution saving.
snip
I started to think about the 'not getting owt for nowt' principle, and
started to doubt whether there really is any 'free lunch' to be had
here.

Very wise, and you highlight a lot of the variables that come into play.

I know that diesels aren't the cleanest of engines, but as far as
I am aware, they produce little or no carbon dioxide,

Er no, burning a carbon based fuel like diesel produces mostly CO2 and
H2O...

so is this just another case of adding the word "Eco" to the front
of some existing item, to justify getting what might be a contentious
change to that item, accepted ?

Possibly. I would expect the truck maker to have the official MPG figures
for that model on their website(*). IMHO what really matters is how much
is delivered for how much fuel consumed

Or am I just being cynical in thinking that if Stobarts got the
approval to roll this out across their fleet of curtain-siders, they
would save the wages of one sixth of their drivers ...

The might be able to reduce the work force a little but these big trucks
won't be able to get everywhere. Some places there is no access for even
a "standard" acrtic...

I suspect the drivers wages are small in comparison to the trucks fuel
bill. Lets say 10mpg (real mpg is probably lower) 1 hour at 56 mph is 5.6
gallons @ £6.30/gallon about £35/hour. I'd expect the drivers to get less
than half that rate, may be less than 1/3.

If you can deliver 20% more for the same fuel costs or even 20% more
goods for 15% more fuel it would still be "green"...

(*) Can't find it with a quick google. But didi find and interesting
document "EFFECTS OF PAYLOAD ON THE FUEL CONSUMPTION OF TRUCKS". That
gives a range fro about 15 mpg down to 6 mpg, unladen to fully laden.

If they end up needing to send smaller trucks to some locations, that
also needs to be factored into the overall "savings". Ah! - the ten
stores we deliver to saves 10% but the extra one we can't get into needs
a special trip by a lorry for that place only - which wipes out all savings.

--
Rod

My big gripe is about the Tesco-owned One Stop Shops that take
deliveries up narrow roads in huge artics.

Outside our local one, they have demolished a concrete bollard twice,
smashed down the end of a small wall and seriously damaged the pavements
on both sides of the road. They also unload parked on the wrong side of
the road, with some of them leaving their headlights on.
In recent mornings, I've had to creep, partly blinded by the lights,
through the narrow bit of road beside the huge bits of angle iron that
make up a modern lorry.

And Aldi's lorries have to mount the pavement to get out after
delivering to their local store.
--
Bill

On 23/10/2012 21:01, Andy Champ wrote:
On 23/10/2012 16:58, Arfa Daily wrote:

Fair enough, I thought. But later whilst giving it a bit more
consideration, I started to think about the 'not getting owt for nowt'
principle, and started to doubt whether there really is any 'free lunch'
to be had here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_train

Some seem to think bigger is better...

Andy

Well this is the age of the train.

Oh - maybe not. Possibly not an acceptable phrase today.

--
Rod

On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 16:58:54 +0100 Arfa Daily wrote :
On last week's episode of Eddie Stobart Trucks and Trailers, they showed
driver Mark working with a new illegal-length trailer that they have been
given special dispensation to trial on UK roads, by the DoT. They said
that it was called an "Eco-trailer" because being some 2 metres longer than
a 'standard' trailer, it would be able to carry nine more cages of Tesco
goods, which would mean less lorries on the road leading to a fuel and
pollution saving.

I am now working as a volunteer builder with Habitat for Humanity and do a
lot of motorway driving. Here there are an incredible number of what are
called B-Doubles: a tractor + trailer + trailer - 34 wheels so, I would
guess, moderate axle loads. They are restricted to certain routes but would
work in the UK for depot-depot operations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-Train

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on',
Melbourne, Australia www.greentram.com

On Tuesday, October 23, 2012 4:58:09 PM UTC+1, Arfa Daily wrote:

On last week's episode of Eddie Stobart Trucks and Trailers, they showed
driver Mark working with a new illegal-length trailer that they have been
given special dispensation to trial on UK roads, by the DoT. They said that
it was called an "Eco-trailer" because being some 2 metres longer than a
'standard' trailer, it would be able to carry nine more cages of Tesco
goods, which would mean less lorries on the road leading to a fuel and
pollution saving.
Fair enough, I thought. But later whilst giving it a bit more consideration,
I started to think about the 'not getting owt for nowt' principle, and
started to doubt whether there really is any 'free lunch' to be had here. If
the 'standard' trailer is about 13 m long, then this one at 2 m longer
represents about an extra sixth of a truck. So for every six of these new
trailers, you'd save one standard tractor unit and trailer. But then, you've
got to take into account that the extra 2 m of trailer is going to weigh
quite a bit, as is the extra axle and tyres that it had, and the extra
equipment to make the rear axles steerable so that it can get round
roundabouts, and manoeuvre in tight yards. On top of that, there will be the
additional frictional drag from the extra axle, plus the weight of the nine
extra cages, and the goods in them. Hauling those additional weights and
losses, is going to take more engine power, and will thus use more fuel. So
how much fuel usage advantage would really be gained from these extra long
trailers ? Any ? Rather less than was implied ? And as for reducing
pollution, I know that diesels aren't the cleanest of engines, but as far as
I am aware, they produce little or no carbon dioxide, which is the one that
the green mist brigade are terrified of, and only small amounts of carbon
monoxide, so is this just another case of adding the word "Eco" to the front
of some existing item, to justify getting what might be a contentious change
to that item, accepted ? Or am I just being cynical in thinking that if
Stobarts got the approval to roll this out across their fleet of
curtain-siders, they would save the wages of one sixth of their drivers ...
?
Arfa


An easy way to compare them is to visualise 6 new trucks travelling along versus 7 current ones. Its easy to see the savings:
1 less driver
1 less truck built, with its numerous parts
1 less truck front pushing air out the way


NT

Arfa Daily wrote:

On last week's episode of Eddie Stobart Trucks and Trailers, they showed
driver Mark working with a new illegal-length trailer that they have been
given special dispensation to trial on UK roads, by the DoT. They said that
it was called an "Eco-trailer" because being some 2 metres longer than a
'standard' trailer, it would be able to carry nine more cages of Tesco
goods, which would mean less lorries on the road leading to a fuel and
pollution saving.

Am I the only one wondering exactly what stacking pattern, in a
rectangular trailer, gives them 9 extra cages in 2 m?

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh.

On 24/10/2012 06:51, Chris J Dixon wrote:
Arfa Daily wrote:

On last week's episode of Eddie Stobart Trucks and Trailers, they showed
driver Mark working with a new illegal-length trailer that they have been
given special dispensation to trial on UK roads, by the DoT. They said that
it was called an "Eco-trailer" because being some 2 metres longer than a
'standard' trailer, it would be able to carry nine more cages of Tesco
goods, which would mean less lorries on the road leading to a fuel and
pollution saving.

Am I the only one wondering exactly what stacking pattern, in a
rectangular trailer, gives them 9 extra cages in 2 m?


Divide the width (c2.4m) and the extra length each by three and you get
a size of cage around 0.8m x 0.66m. Now, thanks to you, I have to
remember to take a measure with me next time I go into Tesco, so I can
check a shelf stacking cage for size :-)

Colin Bignell

Chris J Dixon wrote:
Arfa Daily wrote:

On last week's episode of Eddie Stobart Trucks and Trailers, they showed
driver Mark working with a new illegal-length trailer that they have been
given special dispensation to trial on UK roads, by the DoT. They said that
it was called an "Eco-trailer" because being some 2 metres longer than a
'standard' trailer, it would be able to carry nine more cages of Tesco
goods, which would mean less lorries on the road leading to a fuel and
pollution saving.

Am I the only one wondering exactly what stacking pattern, in a
rectangular trailer, gives them 9 extra cages in 2 m?


3x3x1

Chris


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 08:31:11 +0100, Nightjar wrote:

Am I the only one wondering exactly what stacking pattern, in a
rectangular trailer, gives them 9 extra cages in 2 m?

Divide the width (c2.4m) and the extra length each by three and you get
a size of cage around 0.8m x 0.66m.

Googling indicates that 800 x 715 is the "standard" "roll container" or
"roll pallet" size but there are all manner of variations/options.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 24/10/2012 09:29, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 08:31:11 +0100, Nightjar wrote:

Am I the only one wondering exactly what stacking pattern, in a
rectangular trailer, gives them 9 extra cages in 2 m?

Divide the width (c2.4m) and the extra length each by three and you get
a size of cage around 0.8m x 0.66m.

Googling indicates that 800 x 715 is the "standard" "roll container" or
"roll pallet" size but there are all manner of variations/options.

That was the size I used to buy, but I assume that Tesco buy enough to
be able to have them custom made, should they wish. Of course, there
would only need to be a spare 145mm in the existing trailer for an extra
2m to allow room for three more rows of standard containers.

Colin Bignell

Tony Bryer wrote:
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 16:58:54 +0100 Arfa Daily wrote :
On last week's episode of Eddie Stobart Trucks and Trailers, they showed
driver Mark working with a new illegal-length trailer that they have been
given special dispensation to trial on UK roads, by the DoT. They said
that it was called an "Eco-trailer" because being some 2 metres longer than
a 'standard' trailer, it would be able to carry nine more cages of Tesco
goods, which would mean less lorries on the road leading to a fuel and
pollution saving.

I am now working as a volunteer builder with Habitat for Humanity

Oh $DEITY how many stinking Flokati rugs, zinc plated wastebaskets and pine
scatter cushions does the world need?

--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

Arfa Daily wrote:
On last week's episode of Eddie Stobart Trucks and Trailers, they
showed driver Mark working with a new illegal-length trailer that
they have been given special dispensation to trial on UK roads, by
the DoT. They said that it was called an "Eco-trailer" because being
some 2 metres longer than a 'standard' trailer, it would be able to
carry nine more cages of Tesco goods, which would mean less lorries
on the road leading to a fuel and pollution saving.

Fair enough, I thought. But later whilst giving it a bit more
consideration, I started to think about the 'not getting owt for
nowt' principle, and started to doubt whether there really is any
'free lunch' to be had here. If the 'standard' trailer is about 13 m
long, then this one at 2 m longer represents about an extra sixth of
a truck. So for every six of these new trailers, you'd save one
standard tractor unit and trailer. But then, you've got to take into
account that the extra 2 m of trailer is going to weigh quite a bit,
as is the extra axle and tyres that it had, and the extra equipment
to make the rear axles steerable so that it can get round
roundabouts, and manoeuvre in tight yards. On top of that, there will
be the additional frictional drag from the extra axle, plus the
weight of the nine extra cages, and the goods in them. Hauling those
additional weights and losses, is going to take more engine power,
and will thus use more fuel. So how much fuel usage advantage would
really be gained from these extra long trailers ? Any ? Rather less
than was implied ? And as for reducing pollution, I know that diesels
aren't the cleanest of engines, but as far as I am aware, they
produce little or no carbon dioxide, which is the one that the green
mist brigade are terrified of, and only small amounts of carbon
monoxide, so is this just another case of adding the word "Eco" to
the front of some existing item, to justify getting what might be a
contentious change to that item, accepted ? Or am I just being
cynical in thinking that if Stobarts got the approval to roll this
out across their fleet of curtain-siders, they would save the wages
of one sixth of their drivers ... ?

The majority of the weight of a fully loaded HGV heading for Tesco will be
the truck itself, I mean, what do forty pallets of crisps weigh?
bread?
teabags?
There's loads of light goods that take up space but weigh next to nothing,
yet it costs the same as a 250kg pallet of lager to get to the
destination...what I'm saying here is that instead of thinking in terms of
weight versus fuel savings, it's capacity, IE space

"Phil L" wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote:
On last week's episode of Eddie Stobart Trucks and Trailers, they
showed driver Mark working with a new illegal-length trailer that
they have been given special dispensation to trial on UK roads, by
the DoT. They said that it was called an "Eco-trailer" because being
some 2 metres longer than a 'standard' trailer, it would be able to
carry nine more cages of Tesco goods, which would mean less lorries
on the road leading to a fuel and pollution saving.

Fair enough, I thought. But later whilst giving it a bit more
consideration, I started to think about the 'not getting owt for
nowt' principle, and started to doubt whether there really is any
'free lunch' to be had here. If the 'standard' trailer is about 13 m
long, then this one at 2 m longer represents about an extra sixth of
a truck. So for every six of these new trailers, you'd save one
standard tractor unit and trailer. But then, you've got to take into
account that the extra 2 m of trailer is going to weigh quite a bit,
as is the extra axle and tyres that it had, and the extra equipment
to make the rear axles steerable so that it can get round
roundabouts, and manoeuvre in tight yards. On top of that, there will
be the additional frictional drag from the extra axle, plus the
weight of the nine extra cages, and the goods in them. Hauling those
additional weights and losses, is going to take more engine power,
and will thus use more fuel. So how much fuel usage advantage would
really be gained from these extra long trailers ? Any ? Rather less
than was implied ? And as for reducing pollution, I know that diesels
aren't the cleanest of engines, but as far as I am aware, they
produce little or no carbon dioxide, which is the one that the green
mist brigade are terrified of, and only small amounts of carbon
monoxide, so is this just another case of adding the word "Eco" to
the front of some existing item, to justify getting what might be a
contentious change to that item, accepted ? Or am I just being
cynical in thinking that if Stobarts got the approval to roll this
out across their fleet of curtain-siders, they would save the wages
of one sixth of their drivers ... ?

The majority of the weight of a fully loaded HGV heading for Tesco will be
the truck itself, I mean, what do forty pallets of crisps weigh?
bread?
teabags?
There's loads of light goods that take up space but weigh next to nothing,
yet it costs the same as a 250kg pallet of lager to get to the
destination...what I'm saying here is that instead of thinking in terms of
weight versus fuel savings, it's capacity, IE space


I would dispute that it costs the same to haul 50 cubic feet of crisps, as
it does to haul 50 cubic feet of cans of lager. The weight of the goods
being hauled is a significant part of the overall equation, as is the weight
of the trailer. Another two metres of that, plus the additional axle and the
equipment to make the rear axles steerable, is not going to be
insignificant, and when you add in the (potential) weight of the extra
goods - probably somewhere in the region of 500 cubic feet in the additional
capacity afforded by this trailer - the overall weight of the trailer will
be a fair percentage higher than that of a 'standard' trailer. The energy to
move this, and keep it moving, comes from the tractor unit's engine, and the
energy to make this happen, is derived from the diesel that it burns. If the
engine has to output more power to haul the extra weight, then it must use
more diesel. I was just interested in how much more diesel, as this
obviously at least partially negates any claims of using less diesel and
producing less pollution than having an additional sixth of a conventional
trailer on the road.

Arfa

On 26/10/2012 01:25, Arfa Daily wrote:

I would dispute that it costs the same to haul 50 cubic feet of crisps,
as it does to haul 50 cubic feet of cans of lager. The weight of the
goods being hauled is a significant part of the overall equation, as is
the weight of the trailer. Another two metres of that, plus the
additional axle and the equipment to make the rear axles steerable, is
not going to be insignificant, and when you add in the (potential)
weight of the extra goods - probably somewhere in the region of 500
cubic feet in the additional capacity afforded by this trailer - the
overall weight of the trailer will be a fair percentage higher than that
of a 'standard' trailer. The energy to move this, and keep it moving,
comes from the tractor unit's engine, and the energy to make this
happen, is derived from the diesel that it burns. If the engine has to
output more power to haul the extra weight, then it must use more
diesel. I was just interested in how much more diesel, as this obviously
at least partially negates any claims of using less diesel and producing
less pollution than having an additional sixth of a conventional trailer
on the road.

The weight is rather less important than you might think. Consider a
truck going a constant speed down a motorway for ages - where are the
losses? Weight is important for acceleration, but once you're at a
constant speed none of that is going on.

The vast majority is air resistance, and that's not going to be much
more at all for the bigger trailer - same frontal area, no massive
difference in shape.

There will be some rolling resistance, and a part of that will be
proportional to weight, but it'll be swamped by air resistance.

On 25/10/12 20:47, Phil L wrote:

The majority of the weight of a fully loaded HGV heading for Tesco will be
the truck itself, I mean, what do forty pallets of crisps weigh?
bread?
teabags?
There's loads of light goods that take up space but weigh next to nothing,
yet it costs the same as a 250kg pallet of lager to get to the
destination...what I'm saying here is that instead of thinking in terms of
weight versus fuel savings, it's capacity, IE space



When I shipped by worldly goods by sea, the charge was by the cubic meter.

Airfreight is by weight

But in the context of trucking a lot of things ARE heavy. Tins of this
and that and most liquids are about a tonne a cubic meter.

Crisps are the exception not the rule.

And if you have ever driven a fully loaded commercial vehicle you will
know that fuel consumption definitely increases.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 26/10/12 02:03, Clive George wrote:
On 26/10/2012 01:25, Arfa Daily wrote:

I would dispute that it costs the same to haul 50 cubic feet of crisps,
as it does to haul 50 cubic feet of cans of lager. The weight of the
goods being hauled is a significant part of the overall equation, as is
the weight of the trailer. Another two metres of that, plus the
additional axle and the equipment to make the rear axles steerable, is
not going to be insignificant, and when you add in the (potential)
weight of the extra goods - probably somewhere in the region of 500
cubic feet in the additional capacity afforded by this trailer - the
overall weight of the trailer will be a fair percentage higher than that
of a 'standard' trailer. The energy to move this, and keep it moving,
comes from the tractor unit's engine, and the energy to make this
happen, is derived from the diesel that it burns. If the engine has to
output more power to haul the extra weight, then it must use more
diesel. I was just interested in how much more diesel, as this obviously
at least partially negates any claims of using less diesel and producing
less pollution than having an additional sixth of a conventional trailer
on the road.

The weight is rather less important than you might think. Consider a
truck going a constant speed down a motorway for ages - where are the
losses? Weight is important for acceleration, but once you're at a
constant speed none of that is going on.

The vast majority is air resistance, and that's not going to be much
more at all for the bigger trailer - same frontal area, no massive
difference in shape.

There will be some rolling resistance, and a part of that will be
proportional to weight, but it'll be swamped by air resistance.

Its less, but not swamped. I'd say a truck is probably at 56mph around
50/ 50 when loaded.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 02:03:02 +0100, Clive George
wrote:

The weight is rather less important than you might think. Consider a
truck going a constant speed down a motorway for ages - where are the
losses? Weight is important for acceleration, but once you're at a
constant speed none of that is going on.

The vast majority is air resistance, and that's not going to be much
more at all for the bigger trailer - same frontal area, no massive
difference in shape.

There will be some rolling resistance, and a part of that will be
proportional to weight, but it'll be swamped by air resistance.

First find a motorway without any hills


--

Arfa Daily wrote:


I would dispute that it costs the same to haul 50 cubic feet of
crisps, as it does to haul 50 cubic feet of cans of lager.

Eddie Stobart gets paid the same whether the load is lager or crisps.
Yes, it will cost him more to get the lager delivered than the crisps, but
he does't charge any less when it's lighter loads like toilet rolls etc -
it's one flat charge per delivery, so adding a few extra cubic metres which
can be filled with light goods makes perfectly good financial sense.

On 26/10/2012 09:24, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Its less, but not swamped. I'd say a truck is probably at 56mph around
50/ 50 when loaded.

In which case if you add a sixth to the load, the rolling resistance
will rise by a sixth and the air resistance by SFA so you save 1/12th of
the fuel. Worth doing.

Andy

On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 11:46:05 +0100, The Other Mike wrote:

The weight is rather less important than you might think. Consider a
truck going a constant speed down a motorway for ages - where are the
losses? Weight is important for acceleration, but once you're at a
constant speed none of that is going on.

First find a motorway without any hills

On average you stay at the same height, yes you'll burn more fuel going
up hill but then you go back down. Modern engines don't burn fuel under
engine braking...

Not sure if I posted a link to a .pdf I found the other day in relation
to this thread. That said each extra tonne of payload added 0.112 mpg. If
I didn't post a link I bet I can't find it again. B-)

--
Cheers
Dave.