I do care to some extent, but when I am asked to fill the tanks and then I hand in my receipts only to be told that “it doesn’t matter about the receipts because the fuel company send us all we need” I sort of think - well why do I care? They don’t even know what the consumption figures are for the wagon I drive, I am glad I don’t drive full time for them. BTW it shows 10.8 mpg, DAF XF105 460 (2011), rarely pulls over 30 ton all up, I don’t even know if this is good or bad myself, then again I suppose I don’t care that much after all!
Is 9.91mpg good for a tipper with a cat engine?
Muckaway:
Is 9.91mpg good for a tipper with a cat engine?
I would say that was good.
Danny27404:
I dont care i dont pay for it and with the state of the roads congestion and supermarkets fining the firm £1000 for been late. id rather have a good get there on time record and seen as fuel economy is at the back of our firms mind ill keep going hell bent to make the booking times.
I find that a rather strange take on a job, not caring about fuel economy or cost, but then trying to save them money on unrealistic timed slots 
An interesting debate. i’m not employed but I take care with fuel. However, I don’t imagine that employed drivers as a rule worry any more than their employer worries about the poor wages he pays them… 
so we run fleetboard and everyone is more interested in harse braking idle etc mpg is secondry i average 10/10,5 mpg fleetboard score 87% some one else 8.5/ 9 mpg fleetboard 90% plus what a load of twoddle surly a saving of 10 / 15 % on fuel consumption is better than 4 % on a dammed fleetboard !!!
I do still care.
ncooper:
8wheels:
The daft thing is that fuel must be one of the biggest bills but no effort is made to get the use reduced. We do a fair amount of running back and forwards that could be reduced by better planning or if they worked out our average and gave us a target figure to achieve each month with a small monetary bonus. If I tried harder I could probably get to 8mpg, saving around 10% on fuel. Even if they paid a tenner a week they’d still be quids in.Exactly right and if you worked for me you would get that fuel bonus.
In fact, if you worked for me and pointed out that I was doing something that was costing more
than it needed to, you would get another bonus.
(Then, I’m a driver who has become a manager, at least in name, I only manage myself)
I look all around me and see hauliers in the tightest state the industry has been in for years,
yet many of them are running their trucks and drivers ragged for peanut rates.Even some of the Irish are cutting their trucks back to under 90 kph to save fuel.
There is a lesson there that, if ignored, will only end in tears.Regards,
Nick.
I agree 100%
The company I am currently working at (but leaving any time soon!) has finally switched onto fuel economy. I have proven via trials that a reduction to 52 on ‘most’ of the fleet saves around £2000 a year per truck. it took some proving though and was begrudgingly (?) accepted. Doesn’t work on all vehicles (some got worse - still looking at that) - only affects motorway miles really but with 70 vehicles and a potential to save £2000 (minimum) each per year over current costs … got to be something in it.
But of course we are in a service industry. Service the customer or lose them. Impossible booking times have become the everyday normality and that’s when fuel consumption goes out of the window. But in an industry on such low profit margins and with such high overheads we can’t afford to lose customers. yes at times we run the trucks for less than nothing - just to live to fight another day. Empty running? Plenty of that if we are to service that impossible customer!
I can’t believe some have posted on here that they don’t care less about fuel economy. Ar ethese the first to moan when a company goes bust or makes some redundant? In this industry - no matter the size of company we need to do all we can to save on costs.
yes some bosses drive big cars - mine races a truck for god sake! Either way, as an individual we all need to try to keep costs down (so he can have a ftaser race truck )
Pete
I do because of pride in doing well and, whatever people think, the environment won’t be harmed by using a little less derv. Also less wear and tear etc., and less tiring. I do agree with the other comments about companies though, I’ve never been thanked for doing a good job is this regard. They seem more interested in finding fault with drivers, rather than encouraging them when they do well.
And then they wonder why they can’t get drivers to be part of the team. Management techniques in this industry are still back in the stone-age…
Biscuits:
I do because of pride in doing well and, whatever people think, the environment won’t be harmed by using a little less derv. Also less wear and tear etc., and less tiring. I do agree with the other comments about companies though, I’ve never been thanked for doing a good job is this regard. They seem more interested in finding fault with drivers, rather than encouraging them when they do well.And then they wonder why they can’t get drivers to be part of the team. Management techniques in this industry are still back in the stone-age…
VERY well said!
I’m on a bonus scheme, so yes I’m bothered.
9.3 on 44t multidrop isn’t too sad I reckon, and any loss in journey times is negligable IMHO.
Plus, the less diesel my lorry uses, the more likely I am to be in a job next week.
Are “stone age management techniques” a sign we’re finally getting rid of the dinosaurs? 
I don’t overly care (agency driver), but I do keep track of things. How I do things depends what’s on the run sheet that day. Everything normal and I’m happy to plod along at 80km/h
One place I work for has a 9mpg average. (but a 7mpg if you doing local shunts).
Apart from the Hall of Shame on the notice board, there isn’t an easy way to keep track of it unless your mental arithmetic is spot-on. Why? Well the trucks record the distance in KILOMETRES, the speedos are in KILOMETRES PER HOUR, the distances on the road signs are in KILOMETRES and the speed limits are in KILOMETRES PER HOUR. I draw fuel from the pump in LITRES.
Hello transport office - WE’VE GONE METRIC here or haven’t you noticed? The only thing imperial round here when I last looked was a pint of beer. So why have a bloody target in IMPERIAL units 
(For the record, I’ve no objection to one system or the other, just mixing them)
(Sorry about that) I aim to get below 31.4 l/100km, but if the load is heavy the terrain hilly, it’ll be tough. On the other hand if the load is light and the tyres are Michelin Energies, I’ll consume less and sometimes even below 25.0 l/100km.(and sad enough to take a picture 
)
Shunting around on local trips expect nearer 40.0 l/100km (Well that’s what the trip computer tells me).
But I don’t believe in league tables. Too many variables as noted.
I did ask if there was anything to sign as it was 8.82mpg the last sheet up on the wall. The answer was no, as there were no excessive revs, no harsh braking and no idling.
the best way for my boss to save fuel would be to employ planners that ar`nt stupid