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?