It’s happened,
ashbyspannerman:
It’s happened, we’ve just had a notice that to decrease our carbon footprint all of our trucks will be limited to 52 from now on, it’s been an eye opener seeing the reaction from some of our drivers, some of the supposedly ‘lary’ drivers are relaxed about it, some of the ‘steady old boys’ are up in arms!
Load of nonsense but had to happen sooner or later,will probably soon be a e.c directive,but this will keep all the envoironmental scaremongers on the payroll they have to think of new ideas or they might lose their bonuses or nobel prize nominations so they sit there at their brainstormin sessions and have a think,then bingo,lets make them evil lorries go slower so they use less fuel,the green brigade will love that and it will look like that we really are doin something and will be on track to meet the fictional and pointless emmision reduction targets,the lorry hatin public will applaud it,the government will increase our funding for an independant review and consultation will the haulage industry(accountants,bought in execs n shareholders etc and everyone else who dos’nt know one end of a lorry to another)and we will look like we are leadin the way.
In the meantime,it will mean another load of poxy limiter recalibration,more runnin out of time earlier,havin to send vehicles to change over,drivers bein sent out to recover a motor that the driver who’s run out of time,then in a few more years it will be down to 45 mph. ‘fume’
How long before we’re down to 20 mph like in the 1950’s.
How long before we’re down to 20 mph like in the 1950’s.
Think of all the o/t and if not enough drivers the big pay rises 
I had this great idea:
Slower trucks use less fuel… So the slower they go the less fuel they use right?
We have lots of unemployed people who need to be given something constructive to do.
So give them all a red flag each and make them walk in front of the trucks to keep their speed down to 4mph.
Santa:
I had this great idea:Slower trucks use less fuel… So the slower they go the less fuel they use right?
We have lots of unemployed people who need to be given something constructive to do.
So give them all a red flag each and make them walk in front of the trucks to keep their speed down to 4mph.
That sounds ok for the big fleets and the supermarket lot are’nt going much faster than that now but all owner drivers should be exempt.
Santa:
I had this great idea:Slower trucks use less fuel… So the slower they go the less fuel they use right?
We have lots of unemployed people who need to be given something constructive to do.
So give them all a red flag each and make them walk in front of the trucks to keep their speed down to 4mph.
We could use immigrants & set the limiters to 5mph, kill two birds with one stone 
newmercman:
Santa:
I had this great idea:Slower trucks use less fuel… So the slower they go the less fuel they use right?
We have lots of unemployed people who need to be given something constructive to do.
So give them all a red flag each and make them walk in front of the trucks to keep their speed down to 4mph.
We could use immigrants & set the limiters to 5mph, kill two birds with one stone
and those south of watford gap
Quigg:
newmercman:
Santa:
I had this great idea:Slower trucks use less fuel… So the slower they go the less fuel they use right?
We have lots of unemployed people who need to be given something constructive to do.
So give them all a red flag each and make them walk in front of the trucks to keep their speed down to 4mph.
We could use immigrants & set the limiters to 5mph, kill two birds with one stone
and those south of watford gap
Oi that’s racist
newmercman:
Quigg:
newmercman:
Santa:
I had this great idea:Slower trucks use less fuel… So the slower they go the less fuel they use right?
We have lots of unemployed people who need to be given something constructive to do.
So give them all a red flag each and make them walk in front of the trucks to keep their speed down to 4mph.
We could use immigrants & set the limiters to 5mph, kill two birds with one stone
and those south of watford gap
Oi that’s racist
what all those poor bankers that stay down there and work in that poor place called the city 
Quigg:
newmercman:
Quigg:
newmercman:
Santa:
I had this great idea:Slower trucks use less fuel… So the slower they go the less fuel they use right?
We have lots of unemployed people who need to be given something constructive to do.
So give them all a red flag each and make them walk in front of the trucks to keep their speed down to 4mph.
We could use immigrants & set the limiters to 5mph, kill two birds with one stone
and those south of watford gap
Oi that’s racist
what all those poor bankers that stay down there and work in that poor place called the city
Good point 
i wonder if all the trucks in africa and the other developing nations will be doing likewise to lessen their carbon footprint…
Noticed a sign in the local corner shop, not a [zb] shop because they ain’t, no really, it’s posh round here anyway it says that they are charging 5p for carrier bags to save the planet, so don’t worry about slowing down, tell your TM not worry, my corner shop’s got it all covered
propa lorry:
ashbyspannerman:
It’s happened, we’ve just had a notice that to decrease our carbon footprint all of our trucks will be limited to 52 from now on, it’s been an eye opener seeing the reaction from some of our drivers, some of the supposedly ‘lary’ drivers are relaxed about it, some of the ‘steady old boys’ are up in arms!Load of nonsense but had to happen sooner or later,will probably soon be a e.c directive,but this will keep all the envoironmental scaremongers on the payroll they have to think of new ideas or they might lose their bonuses or nobel prize nominations so they sit there at their brainstormin sessions and have a think,then bingo,lets make them evil lorries go slower so they use less fuel,the green brigade will love that and it will look like that we really are doin something and will be on track to meet the fictional and pointless emmision reduction targets,the lorry hatin public will applaud it,the government will increase our funding for an independant review and consultation will the haulage industry(accountants,bought in execs n shareholders etc and everyone else who dos’nt know one end of a lorry to another)and we will look like we are leadin the way.
In the meantime,it will mean another load of poxy limiter recalibration,more runnin out of time earlier,havin to send vehicles to change over,drivers bein sent out to recover a motor that the driver who’s run out of time,then in a few more years it will be down to 45 mph. ‘fume’
How long before we’re down to 20 mph like in the 1950’s.
incorrect, you won’t run out of hours earlier, you will just be further away from where you want to be
since when did running at 52mph against 56mph use less fuel?
if they want the revs down a bit, then why the [zb] don’t the tossers who order new trucks get them set up with the correct dif ratios.
52mph when running heavy means more gear changes than you would at 56mph.
still, what do i know? i don’t work in an office, and i don’t wear an ill-fitting suit. so i must know less than them.
limeyphil:
since when did running at 52mph against 56mph use less fuel?
if they want the revs down a bit, then why the [zb] don’t the tossers who order new trucks get them set up with the correct dif ratios.
52mph when running heavy means more gear changes than you would at 56mph.
still, what do i know? i don’t work in an office, and i don’t wear an ill-fitting suit. so i must know less than them.
Absolutely spot on!!
Late last year i had to run several wide loads from Santander down to Cadiz and due to the restrictions on the permit I could only run at 70 kph. Grossing 40 tonnes, I used significantly more diesel than I would have on the same route travelling at 90kph.
There are some very strange inconsistencies in the carbon footprint argument too - for instance one web site “Carbon Independant” http://www.carbonindependent.org/ claims that an average family car travelling 9,000 miles per annum at 33mpg will produce 3.9 tonnes of Co2.
Simple maths shows that the vehicle will use 272.72 gallons of fuel, assuming that a gallon of dielsel weighs 3.79kgs (based on an sg of .085) then the vehicle will use 1033.60 kgs of fuel in the year.
So how can you get nearly 4 tonnes of Co2 out of just over a tonne of fuel??
Hombre:
limeyphil:
since when did running at 52mph against 56mph use less fuel?
if they want the revs down a bit, then why the [zb] don’t the tossers who order new trucks get them set up with the correct dif ratios.
52mph when running heavy means more gear changes than you would at 56mph.
still, what do i know? i don’t work in an office, and i don’t wear an ill-fitting suit. so i must know less than them.Absolutely spot on!!
Late last year i had to run several wide loads from Santander down to Cadiz and due to the restrictions on the permit I could only run at 70 kph. Grossing 40 tonnes, I used significantly more diesel than I would have on the same route travelling at 90kph.
There are some very strange inconsistencies in the carbon footprint argument too - for instance one web site “Carbon Independant” http://www.carbonindependent.org/ claims that an average family car travelling 9,000 miles per annum at 33mpg will produce 3.9 tonnes of Co2.
Simple maths shows that the vehicle will use 272.72 gallons of fuel, assuming that a gallon of dielsel weighs 3.79kgs (based on an sg of .085) then the vehicle will use 1033.60 kgs of fuel in the year.
So how can you get nearly 4 tonnes of Co2 out of just over a tonne of fuel??
the only way of knowing the answer to this, is to go to university, get a degree in occupational physics of modern art, get a job at some made up government advisory company, then make up ridiculous sentences, that you and everyone around you can’t understand. however, you will be fully aware that everyone around you thinks that evryone else does understand you, so they don’t admit to it, they simply agree with you, then the government agrees with you, and so do large companies, as they have employees who went to the same university as you.
Hombre:
limeyphil:
since when did running at 52mph against 56mph use less fuel?
if they want the revs down a bit, then why the [zb] don’t the tossers who order new trucks get them set up with the correct dif ratios.
52mph when running heavy means more gear changes than you would at 56mph.
still, what do i know? i don’t work in an office, and i don’t wear an ill-fitting suit. so i must know less than them.Absolutely spot on!!
Late last year i had to run several wide loads from Santander down to Cadiz and due to the restrictions on the permit I could only run at 70 kph. Grossing 40 tonnes, I used significantly more diesel than I would have on the same route travelling at 90kph.
There are some very strange inconsistencies in the carbon footprint argument too - for instance one web site “Carbon Independant” http://www.carbonindependent.org/ claims that an average family car travelling 9,000 miles per annum at 33mpg will produce 3.9 tonnes of Co2.
Simple maths shows that the vehicle will use 272.72 gallons of fuel, assuming that a gallon of dielsel weighs 3.79kgs (based on an sg of .085) then the vehicle will use 1033.60 kgs of fuel in the year.
So how can you get nearly 4 tonnes of Co2 out of just over a tonne of fuel??
It is not only fuel that goes into the combustion process, there is a lot of air involved as well
climate change, blah, carbon footprint, blah, what a load of [zb]■■■■, its just another way of the goverments of the world to screw more money out of our pockets
I agree, a lot of air is used during the combustion process, but the only part used is the oxygen which consitutes only about 20% of the volume of air inducted.
Whilst some of the oxygen burnt will undoubtedly become Co2, some will also become oxides of nitrogen, sulpher and also water.
i agree with hombre on the gearchange element of the argument after all most tankers in france run so slow that they get to a hill and die mainly because they’ve got poxy 400 engines thiugh 
another point to think about is this scenario,
9 hours at 90kph gets you 810 km approximately not actually but just for the argument
9 hours at 80kph gets you 720 km so to do the extra 90km you must drive more than an hour extra
this means that to do the same distance you have to run your engine for longer now how is that environmental?