How come cars have become a lot more fuel economical over the years but HGV’s haven’t?
Owner Drivers:
How come cars have become a lot more fuel economical over the years but HGV’s haven’t?
Aerodynamics of a truck are like a broken brick, and the heavier weights mean fuel economy has improved per mile per tonne carried.
pie-in-the-sky thought… overhead electric lines like the ones for trains but for trucks 
no more filling up with fuel and a constant electric supply 
… these ■■■■ smell ‘funny’ again…
ROG:
pie-in-the-sky thought… overhead electric lines like the ones for trains but for trucks
… these ■■■■ smell ‘funny’ again…
And you could call them erm, err, hmm, TRAMS 
ROG:
pie-in-the-sky thought… overhead electric lines like the ones for trains but for trucks
… these ■■■■ smell ‘funny’ again…
Then to reduce road damage use long lengths of steel in parallel lines and perhaps find a way to join many lorries together so only 1 driver is needed for 30 or so trucks,
Hang on I can’t be the first to think of that 
ROG:
pie-in-the-sky thought… overhead electric lines like the ones for trains but for trucks
… these ■■■■ smell ‘funny’ again…
Not very green 
how would the electricity be generated 
maybe they could have windfarms along the entire A14 and wire it straight into the overhead cables
Mikejk:
ROG:
pie-in-the-sky thought… overhead electric lines like the ones for trains but for trucks
… these ■■■■ smell ‘funny’ again…Not very green
That would work until someone ran into a wind generator and blocked the A14, oh that already happens
ROG:
pie-in-the-sky thought… overhead electric lines like the ones for trains but for trucks
… these ■■■■ smell ‘funny’ again…
…with the added benefit that the stupid drivers get culled from the gene pool by electrocution
How many power cards would you have too carry !!!
Owner Drivers:
How come cars have become a lot more fuel economical over the years but HGV’s haven’t?
Doh !! Go check out the engine sizes and how they’ve increased over the years, then check out the vehicle size and how the weights they carry has increased over the years, then think about that question again? I’ll start you off and you can work backwards from that !! Most artics are now plated for 44 tonnes 
"Mike-C:
Most artics are now plated for 44 tonnes
just because they are plated at 44 tonnes doesn’t mean thay are carrying 44 tonnes…
The tyres say india rubber - doesn’t mean they come from there …
Owner Drivers:
"Mike-C:
Most artics are now plated for 44 tonnesjust because they are plated at 44 tonnes doesn’t mean thay are carrying 44 tonnes…
The tyres say india rubber - doesn’t mean they come from there …
Bad analogy. They are capable of pulling 44tonnes, most tractors can nowadays. Years ago they where 32 tonnes, a lot less horse power as well. Go back further and the weight they could pull and their HP was a lot less. Trucks now do a hell of a lot more.
I thought trucks were more ecconomical nowadays than they were some years ago.
4-6 mpg was the norm 20 years ago. Now it’s 8-12 mpg.
It could be better if it wasn’t for legislation preventing us from having more aerodynamic units.
limeyphil:
I thought trucks were more ecconomical nowadays than they were some years ago.
4-6 mpg was the norm 20 years ago. Now it’s 8-12 mpg.It could be better if it wasn’t for legislation preventing us from having more aerodynamic units.
they are more economical - unless they keep driving round and round and round
Mid 90’sI was running a Leyland Roadtrain with a ■■■■■■■ 290 in running 50% of the time empty and running around 32-38 tonnes yet only getting just over 7MPG.
Last week I went tramping in a DAF XF95 460. Only did about 100 miles or so empty in the whole week, never went under 40 tonnes yet managed 8.9MPG despite spending far more time idling and crawling up congested roads than I did in the 90’s.
I was driving 98 Volvo FH12 460 was getting about 7mpg, now got 05 plate Volvo FH12 460 getting 10mpg same run same weight.
Ok not a huge improvement compared to advances in cars, but then again size of the engines and weight being carried in relative terms prob a good advance.