The Glade 4.0

"Turn the lights down, the party just got wilder."
It is currently Sat Nov 23, 2024 10:33 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 75 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2011 3:45 pm 
Offline
Manchurian Mod
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 9:40 am
Posts: 5866
To clarify, the article Aizle linked claims that drag is being reduced by 23%. It does not claim that fuel efficiency is improved by 23%.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2011 4:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 9:36 am
Posts: 4320
Hopwin wrote:
Aizle wrote:
Kaffis Mark V wrote:
Okay. So why isn't everybody using them?


The short answer is because the Transportation Industry is the poster child for penny wise and pound foolish. These systems cost some significant money up front, but pay out dividends over a few years, and most transportation management is short sighted enough that they don't plan that far, or don't know how.

The long answer:

Ground transportation is loosely grouped into 2 major areas. Private fleets and LTL carriers.

Private fleets are large companies that own their own trucks and manage their own distribution. Think Walmart, most large grocery chains, etc. These are the companies that have the best chance of using one of these products and a lot of the smarter one's do. However, the problem is that these companies are in the business of selling food or other products. Their transportation departments are cost centers and therefore the red-headed stepchild of the organization. They are always screamed at to spend less money. Additionally, the old joke is that the definition of a trans manager is a driver with a bad back. Meaning, that the majority of the transporation management doesn't have any management experience, or business experience. They have gotten to where they are by working harder, not smarter more often than not. So their typical day is running around from fire to fire trying to keep the wheels from falling off. It is extremely hard to get people in that type of environment with that type of background to look at anything beyond what happens tomorrow or next week, much less try and do a cost benefit analysis and present it to their senior leadership for a large capital project.

LTL carriers are true transportation companies. They exist to haul freight. Think Schneider, Roadway, UPS, etc. These companies don't do much with these types of systems because they bill their customers for the shipping costs. The comments about trans managers apply here as well, and in general there is less cost reduction pressure on the LTL markets because they just pass it through to their customer.

But really, the biggest reason why technologies like this aren't used in the trans industry is because it is probably one of the most conservative industries in the world. Truckers DO NOT LIKE CHANGE. Seriously, any change is bad, even if the end results are good. Drivers and by extension trans managers often have to be drug kicking and screaming into the 21st century when it comes to any kind of technology.


That is a gross mischaracterization of the industry. The majority of truckers are owner-operators who contract on to haul a load from point-a to point-b. Typically they own their rig and one or two trailers but spend a significant portion of their time hauling non-owned trailers for whatever carrier they are contracted to. If you pay close attention on the highway you'll clearly notice Fed-Ex trucks because the trailers are emblazoned with the company logo but if you start watching you'll see no uniformity amongst the pulling units and if you care to check you'll notice they all have their own USDOT #s.


Actually it's not a gross mischaracterization of the industry. I work in the industry.

Yes, there are a ton of owner-operators out there as well, they fall under the LTL bucket more often than not, although there are some private fleets that contract out to owner operators.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2011 4:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:49 pm
Posts: 3455
Location: St. Louis, MO
TheRiov wrote:
I'm assuming you're asking me to provide what solutions there are to get to 33% efficiency on the use of internal combustion engines?

Your math is wrong. Even a 10% increase in efficiency is not measure against the theoretical maximum 100% efficiency, but rather the existing efficiency. a 10% increase in efficiency would get you from 20% -> 22% efficiency.

The whole point is that he's asking the auto industry to put greater focus on developing the technologies to improve engine performance.


Beyond that, you're comparing apples and oranges. Changing the drag or aerodynamic profile does nothing to change engine efficiency. An internal combustion engine has a theoretical maximum efficiency in that a certain amount of the total energy consumed in burning a fuel is lost to things like heat, that does not go to actually turning the vehicle.
Even in a perfect, frictionless system, the upper limit on an internal combustion engine is 37%. Rockets, on the other hand are about 70% efficient.

Changing the aerodynamic properties properties of the vehicle is a totally different thing.

A vehicle in motion in an atmosphere or in the water produces drag. The higher the speed, the higher the drag.

Reducing cross section, creating vortexes in the right places to reduce low pressure area --all these things reduce drag. According to the web site I listed, 65% of a semi's power goes JUST to overcoming drag. If you could eliminate drag, you would more than double the fuel efficiency. But you still wouldn't pass your engine efficiency. (of course its impossible to eliminate drag outside of a total vacuum, but I'm just talking about the hypothetical)

You realize that all references to "efficiency" in my post are constrained to "fuel efficiency", right? I realize I only said "fuel" with "efficiency" twice out of the three times I said "efficiency", but I thought it would be clear at that point.

I am, in fact, not asking anything beyond where the remaining 15% increase to fuel efficiency can be found, bearing in mind the implicit claim from Aizle that the needed gains can be reached without reducing towing capacity.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2011 4:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 9:36 am
Posts: 4320
Aerodynamics is one of the largest areas for aftermarket systems, because most engine modifications void warranties, and the most private fleets especially lease their trucks instead of buying them.

I worked with a company that was testing a recirculation system with Fed Ex, where they were taking exhaust gases and basically condensing them and reburning them which was improving their MPG, but for the life of me I can't remember the name of the company.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2011 4:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 9:36 am
Posts: 4320
shuyung wrote:
I am, in fact, not asking anything beyond where the remaining 15% increase to fuel efficiency can be found, bearing in mind the implicit claim from Aizle that the needed gains can be reached without reducing towing capacity.


I never said that one could gain a 15% increase in efficiency without reducing towing capacity. It may or may not be possible.

All I said was that Kaffis' claim that the only way to significantly increase fuel economy was to reduce towing capacity was wrong. And that there were many aftermarket devices that do just that.

That said, I have no doubt that there are plenty of efficiencies that are possible within the engine as well.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2011 4:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 9:36 am
Posts: 4320
For those really bored, here's a white paper on fuel economy from Kenworth. A little dated, but still very relevant. Here is a particular tidbit of info that speaks to why aerodynamics are so important.

Quote:
Approximately half the energy used by a truck traveling 55 mph is to simply move the
air around that truck. At 65 mph, about two-thirds of the energy is used to cut through the air.


http://www.kenworth.com/FuelEconomyWhitePaper.pdf


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2011 5:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:49 pm
Posts: 3455
Location: St. Louis, MO
Aizle wrote:
I never said that one could gain a 15% increase in efficiency without reducing towing capacity. It may or may not be possible.

All I said was that Kaffis' claim that the only way to significantly increase fuel economy was to reduce towing capacity was wrong. And that there were many aftermarket devices that do just that.

That said, I have no doubt that there are plenty of efficiencies that are possible within the engine as well.

So you find 4.5-8% significant?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2011 5:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 10:36 am
Posts: 3083
Apropos of the "towing capacity" issue, note that the increased fuel efficiency required is measured based on gallons of fuel consumed per ton-mile, i.e. [(gallons of fuel / mile) / tons of freight hauled]. In short, it's not simply that the truck has to get better mileage, but that it has to use less fuel to move a given amount of freight over a given distance. See this Fact Sheet from the NHTSA. And here are the categories of potential improvements they think will enable trucks to hit the new targets: improved aerodynamics, tires with lower rolling resistance, reduced weight of the truck itself, better idling technology, and vehicle speed limiters. See this Regulatory Impact Analysis from the NHTSA.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2011 6:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 9:36 am
Posts: 4320
shuyung wrote:
Aizle wrote:
I never said that one could gain a 15% increase in efficiency without reducing towing capacity. It may or may not be possible.

All I said was that Kaffis' claim that the only way to significantly increase fuel economy was to reduce towing capacity was wrong. And that there were many aftermarket devices that do just that.

That said, I have no doubt that there are plenty of efficiencies that are possible within the engine as well.

So you find 4.5-8% significant?


Absolutely when you are talking MPG.

A typical over the road driver will put on about 500 miles a day. Often they run teams of drivers so that the truck is always moving. But let's say for argument sake they only run 5 days a week. So that's 2500 miles/week or 130,000 a year. Let's say their truck today makes 6.5 mph (pretty average if they aren't focusing on fuel economy, which most aren't). Right now, diesel fuel in MN is about $3.75/gallon.

(2500 miles/6.5 mpg) * 3.75 = $1,442.31/week or $75,000.00/year in fuel costs

Now let's say that he's able to increase his MPG to 7.0 which is just under an 8% increase in MPG.

(2500 miles/7.0 mpg) * 3.75 = $1,330.29/week or $69,642.86/year in fuel costs

So he's saving $112.02/week or $5,825.04/year

And that is just for 1 single truck. As an example, Sysco (Largest Food Distribution Company in the US) has around 9000 trucks and Schneider (One of the larger LTL companies) has around 12,000 trucks.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2011 8:06 pm 
Offline
pbp Hack
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:45 pm
Posts: 7585
I don't disagree with your savings, I disagree with your view of the size and scope of government, understanding fully that it is vastly different from my own.

The question for me isn't "will lower MPGs result in massive savings truck owners." It's "Should the government vehicle companies under more regulation and to spend the R&D dollars to get that 8% percent when most companies aren't doing well enough to go out and buy new trucks, savings or no."

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:35 pm 
Offline
Peanut Gallery
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 9:40 pm
Posts: 2289
Location: Bat Country
One way or the other someone has to pay for that regulation and it's not the companies.

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 8:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 9:36 am
Posts: 4320
Rorinthas wrote:
I don't disagree with your savings, I disagree with your view of the size and scope of government, understanding fully that it is vastly different from my own.

The question for me isn't "will lower MPGs result in massive savings truck owners." It's "Should the government vehicle companies under more regulation and to spend the R&D dollars to get that 8% percent when most companies aren't doing well enough to go out and buy new trucks, savings or no."


Actually I don't think either of those are the questions the government is asking. I believe the government is looking at greenhouse gas emissions (truckings being easily the largest contributor from an automotive standpoint) and our oil dependency. That is will save companies money as well is icing on the cake.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 9:08 am 
Offline
pbp Hack
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:45 pm
Posts: 7585
That's probably true, but it doesn't make my question any less valid. Someone has to figure out exactly how to get that eight percent. For it to make a real difference in emissions/consumption, the end result has to be something that trucking folks want to buy. Otherwise you're not doing any good by forcing companies to carry a fleet of vehicles no one wants to buy. All that takes money that folks may not have right now.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 9:11 am 
Offline
Evil Bastard™
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:07 am
Posts: 7542
Location: Doomstadt, Latveria
It seems Bernanke has a stealth jobs initiative, too ...

According to Nouriel Roubini, QE1 and QE2 tripled the money supply by pumping another $16 trillion in debt backed currency into our economy.

_________________
Corolinth wrote:
Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.


Last edited by Khross on Fri Aug 12, 2011 10:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 9:19 am 
Offline
adorabalicious
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:54 am
Posts: 5094
Its a stealth jobs initiative because the jobs won't be able to be observed.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 11:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:49 pm
Posts: 3455
Location: St. Louis, MO
Aizle wrote:
Absolutely when you are talking MPG.

A typical over the road driver will put on about 500 miles a day. Often they run teams of drivers so that the truck is always moving. But let's say for argument sake they only run 5 days a week. So that's 2500 miles/week or 130,000 a year. Let's say their truck today makes 6.5 mph (pretty average if they aren't focusing on fuel economy, which most aren't). Right now, diesel fuel in MN is about $3.75/gallon.

(2500 miles/6.5 mpg) * 3.75 = $1,442.31/week or $75,000.00/year in fuel costs

Now let's say that he's able to increase his MPG to 7.0 which is just under an 8% increase in MPG.

(2500 miles/7.0 mpg) * 3.75 = $1,330.29/week or $69,642.86/year in fuel costs

So he's saving $112.02/week or $5,825.04/year

And that is just for 1 single truck. As an example, Sysco (Largest Food Distribution Company in the US) has around 9000 trucks and Schneider (One of the larger LTL companies) has around 12,000 trucks.

You lose a frame of reference for numbers fairly quickly, don't you? By which I mean, once a number reaches a certain number of digits, it becomes "large" and achieves some rough equivalency with any other "large" number.

Now, it's fine that you can find some cost savings. Fuel cost or cost savings aren't the point of the regulation, which I see you admit to in a later post, so I'm not sure why you thought it was germane to the conversation. I'm sure there's some financial incentive for a trucking concern to look into the aerodynamic modifications of trailers. But let's take Sysco, as an example. If Sysco retrofits all of their trailers (and let's use the 9000 number) and achieves an 8% fuel efficiency boost by doing so, with 9000 trailers at 2500 miles/week over 52 weeks come out to roughly a $48M savings. Let's round up and call it $50M. If you'd like, we could even call it $75M or $100M. That looks like a lot, doesn't it? Sysco reported revenues for 2010 at $37.2B. But let's express that in M, so that you can get a feel for things. $37200M. If we use the $100M figure for savings, we can drop a couple of zeros and get a quick and dirty ratio. That's a rounding error. Note that doesn't mean it's not financially attractive, it's just insignificant. Things can be both attractive and insignificant.

But can you address the question in regards to fuel consumption? I will go out on a limb and say the regulation is concerned almost solely with fuel consumption. I'm not even sure emissions are that much of a factor. And another question to consider, if reduction of fuel consumption is the goal, why not just drop the speed limit for semi trucks to 55 mph on the interstate system?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 2:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:27 am
Posts: 2169
While the information on means to decrease fuel consumption via trailer modification is interesting, are trailers considered part of the "truck" in those regulations?

For cars, its as it rolls off the assembly line, and testing is done via placing the car on a set of rollers and measuring gas consumption for a virtual distance covered by the rollers. Or at least it used to be. Air resistance doesn't factor since the car is stationary.

The you have the issue fire trucks, cement mixers, and the majority of commercial trucks not used for long distance freight, don't have trailers to make those kinds of gains.

But while focusing on semi's and part of RD's post... tires with lower rolling resistance (less traction?) and weight reduction... what kind of weight reductions are talking about and via what means? Higher use of titanium for structural members?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 2:23 pm 
Offline
Manchurian Mod
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 9:40 am
Posts: 5866
You can place the car and rollers in a wind tunnel and simulate air resistance in the test.

On second thought, no you couldn't. That would just push the car back harder onto the back rollers.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 6:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:22 pm
Posts: 5716
Corolinth wrote:
You can place the car and rollers in a wind tunnel and simulate air resistance in the test.

On second thought, no you couldn't. That would just push the car back harder onto the back rollers.


I've always thought they handle tests independently, depending on what they are looking at. Wind tunnel, without rollers, for airflow/aerodynamics tests, then rollers for some tests, etc. Then road tests at the end.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 3:32 am 
Offline
Perfect Equilibrium
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:27 pm
Posts: 3127
Location: Coffin Corner
TheRiov wrote:
Internal combustion engines run around 18-20% efficiency. The Theoretical upper limit of standard internal combustion engines is ~33% IIRC.

In theory, (and practice) engineering CAN improve fuel efficiency without reducing power. It doesn't always cost more to make more efficient structures.. that's a fallacy.


Maybe thermal efficiency numbers, a mostly meaningless definition for efficiency when dealing with IC engines, are around that level but efficiencies such as brake specific fuel consumption levels can vary drastically with different engine designs. Most people unfamiliar with basic engine design often intend BSFC when referring to engine "efficiency" but one must be careful not to confuse this measurement method with figures referencing first law (thermal) efficiency .

The next generation of tech for IC engines is highly hamstrung by the currently available materials. HCCI type engines which involve a homogeneous charge ignited using auto-ignition can achieve unbelievable mean effective pressures. The problem is such MEP's mean enormous actual working pressures unless the engine is scaled back and fueled very lean, resulting in extremely poor specific power. This is a problem for IC engines in mobile applications for obvious reasons. However, if materials become available where these pressures can be harnessed reliably, the idea of very small engines producing enormous torque but being able to run extremely lean during low load operations could become a reality. Of course, this also depends on an advancement in solenoid and instrumentation and control tech because very complicated, completely variable valvetrains will be required to meet the aspirations requirements of such designs.


The other avenue is exotic materials to significantly reduce vehicle weight, but this is an area few are willing to invest into because of the likelihood of failure to meet crash safety standards. This is ironic because crash safety standards wouldn't be so needlessly stringent if vehicles weren't so heavy.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 3:48 am 
Offline
Perfect Equilibrium
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:27 pm
Posts: 3127
Location: Coffin Corner
EPA fuel economy tests are performed on chassis dynamometers and through putting the car through a load cycle which "mimics" typical driving. A fan is provided only to keep the engine from overheating.

The problem with this test are many. The load cycle is an arbitrary driving pattern, probably measured when the EPA guy in charge of the project of developing a test drove to work one day. Although, one random test is good as any other, the same random test might be unduly favorable or faulting of different engines whose optimal operating envelops fall within or outside of the load pattern. Driving loads change day to day due to things such as traffic and weather. And while unscrupulous, it could be possible for a manufacturer to tune an engine specifically around the testing load schedule to produce very high numbers which wouldn't be reflected once on the road.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 10:12 am 
Offline
Manchurian Mod
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 9:40 am
Posts: 5866
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
I've always thought they handle tests independently, depending on what they are looking at. Wind tunnel, without rollers, for airflow/aerodynamics tests, then rollers for some tests, etc. Then road tests at the end.
I was responding more to the idea of what can be done as opposed to what is done. The first thing that popped into my head was conducting the roller test in a wind tunnel. Then five minutes later, I realized physics doesn't work that way.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 11:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:22 pm
Posts: 5716
Corolinth wrote:
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
I've always thought they handle tests independently, depending on what they are looking at. Wind tunnel, without rollers, for airflow/aerodynamics tests, then rollers for some tests, etc. Then road tests at the end.
I was responding more to the idea of what can be done as opposed to what is done. The first thing that popped into my head was conducting the roller test in a wind tunnel. Then five minutes later, I realized physics doesn't work that way.


Only conformists obey the laws of physics.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 11:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:59 pm
Posts: 9412
Actually, Corolinth, if you set up the rollers more like a treadmill, the wind tunnel could be made valid, with appropriate dynamic adjustments.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 12:34 pm 
Offline
Manchurian Mod
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 9:40 am
Posts: 5866
It's not impossible to design such a test. It may not really be feasible, though. It's not like existing tests don't give the manufacturer useful information. Now, that information might not be what the general public thinks it is or should be, but what the general public thinks isn't really worth that much in context.

I mean, you can put the car in a wind tunnel to determine how aerodynamic it is. Air resistance is a function of shape, speed, and air density (which is constant). It's not too hard to determine that, say, for a car traveling at 60mph on the freeway in flat road conditions and no wind, you'd have to run the engine hard enough to produce 73mph on the rollers. That provides very useful information about fuel economy, just not in a form that most consumers are prepared to understand when they go to buy a new car.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 75 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 219 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group