I am looking for views on the practice some haulage companies are adopting at the moment of turning road speed limiters down from 56mph to the ridiculously low top speed of 52 mph in an ‘effort to save fuel’. I will say firstly I am a driver not a commercial vehicle designer. I would suggest when the EU decided commercial vehicles were to be speed limited to a maximum speed of 56mph , the guys at DAF, Mercedes, Scania, Volvo etc designed their trucks to run most efficiently at this speed so why does the average haulage boss seem to know more than the trucks designers■■? The big players such as WH Malcolm have tried this and reverted back to 56mph as has Eddie Stobart so if these big players dont see any benefit does that not speak volumes??.
I fully understand the high cost of fuel is reducing margins but is it not just a part of being in road haulage that trucks require diesel?? In 2000 the industry made a stand and blockaded refinery’s etc to attempt to bring down fuel prices and I was so proud of our industry for taking a stand. 13yrs later turning down speed limiters seems to me to be a defeatist move and effectively rolling over on their backs and hoping the government rubs their bellies for being obedient little boys. I always was of the opinion 56mph was too slow on our motorways and trucks should be limited to the statutory speed limit of 60mph but 52mph?? come on!! It causes frustration , boredom, congestion and I have even heard engine damage as the engine management systems are geared up for the vehicles to run at 56mph.
I reckon as the Europe wide law requires trucks to be limited to 90kph or 56mph in old money VOSA should be getting involved and issuing prohibition notices on these vehicles for being too slow and not fit for purpose. The vehicles will fail their annual test if they are 1 mph over 56mph so why not the same rule for being under it. Or would it be too extreme for these ridiculously slow vehicles to be banned from the motorway network for being too slow■■?
I by the way am not some speed freak but merely wishing to drive within the speed limits on the appropriate roads and if the haulage bosses feel the margins are so low they need to fiddle with vehicles road speed limiters,lwell maybe they should up the rates they run for.
Amen, thought I was the only one thinking along these lines, gets on my ■■■■ driving at anything less than 56(I think it should be illegal), my firm never dropped the motors otherwise we would never be able to get all our jobs done in the day, I don’t believe it saves fuel at all, increase in transmission wear more like…
For me I find pulling low trailers & making sure air kits are set right(reduce drag) is what saves fuel, not driving slow…
There has been previous discussion on here along these lines, some drivers have had trucks slowed down only to find that they are now using more fuel as the truck needs a lower gear more often to do the same job. My employers have never questioned the fuel used or made any requests to getter better figures, whilst I think this is foolish on their part I’m in no rush to drive around worrying about using too much juice.
However I anticipate that one day the penny will drop and we’ll be asked to try and save fuel, I’ve got a couple of cards up my sleeve which could improve things a little. About a year ago I did a tedious run to Poole from Essex and back whilst empty / lightly loaded, out of interest I conducted an experiment by resetting the fuel computer and monitoring it for 20km sections at different speeds. I think I tried 89, 88, 87, 85 & 80kmh or something of the sort and found that reducing the speed by 2km/h was a big improvement. Coming down further used similar or slightly less than flat out. I tried it on several 20km sections to make sure that I wasn’t getting a rogue stretch. I now know how I can reduce my fuel bill if ever needed.
But I would say that there is not going to be a common speed that is best for all.
a lot of the auto boxes cant handle to reduced limiter spend and will just keep changing up and down all the time causing increased fuel consumption, I think the mercs were the worst but the other didn’t fair to well either
wildfire:
a lot of the auto boxes cant handle to reduced limiter spend and will just keep changing up and down all the time causing increased fuel consumption, I think the mercs were the worst but the other didn’t fair to well either
Try driving your auto in manual mode and you will find improvement in your fuel figures as you control gearbox movements. What the makers say is total crap.
Lower speeds on localish work improve fuel and cut down wear and tear on a lorry, this is a great saving on costs. On distance work running at higher speeds may seem as if you are getting better fuel returns but you are doing miles for nothing, no load no pay.
Higher speeds more cost on the lorry.
a company i drove for on the agency a while back had 6 of its 55 plate dafs turned down to 85kph and the savings were so good the new fleet on 58 plates were all at 85kph and they reckoned they were saving over 3 grand a week in feul at that 1 depot alone.
more recently i was driving a MAN wagon and drag to bridgwater from crick 5 nights a week and then they turned it down to 85kph and i was putting 10 litres of feul LESS in each night…thats 1 truck…do the maths.
the autobox dint like it but as said…use the manual shift to keep it out of top on hills.
i find that at 85kph the driving is much less stressful…no more 1/2 kph race for miles side by side and when im paid by the hour its more profitable for me aswell.
Sounds like false economy to me, the money saved on the fuel, so you say, goes into the drivers pocket- most companies don’t like that, what’s the point then…■■?
It dosn’t save any fuel at all, Usually quite the opposite.
A lorry set at 58mph but shows 55mph on the tacho will cover more miles than the computer thinks it has, Therefore it will have a lower mpg figure on paper than the actual mpg.
The opposite happens with those that have been wound back. A lorry doing 52mph but showing 55mph will cover less miles than the computer thinks it has, Therefore it will have a higher mpg figure on paper than the actual mpg.
Also, The manufactuers make trucks to run at an optimum rpm for maximum fuel consumption. This may be 1400 rpm but the pen pushers want it down to 1300, Why mess with it?
In pre speed limiter days you’d be doing 65mph at 1400 revs.
My truck has been turned down to 83kph and it doesn’t bother me in the slightest.
Driving it in manual and letting the engine lug down to 800rpm on hills before changing down certainly saves fuel too.
I find it less stressful too as I don’t get involved with the driving up each others arse in the middle lane overtaking game,u just there.
As for the op saying trucks are designed for 90 kph,if that’s the case then how come the speed limits for trucks in Europe are lower in some countries than us?,Isbt Germany for example still 80kph?
My fuel figures have gotten a lot higher since being turned down and if I can help the companies bottom line by doing my little bit then at least i’ll stay in a job.
This subject has been done to death… and not just on here…haven,t you noticed how even cars are going alot slower these days■■?
My Truck is capable of doing 56 but on motorways i will sit there at 52 and let the big V8 Glory Boys go flying by on their £6.50 an hour…
I take it the op only goes 40mph on single lane roads as he did say he drives Within speed limits on appropriate roads…
I have a W&D and run at 44t my average fuel consumption over the last 4 years is 7.9mpg and that is with a PTO running a HIAB.
So yes, running at 52 works for me and it works for my boss, I am so sorry if you have so much trouble getting past me on the motorway, i’m not sorry about the A roads, as you only go at 40mph…so i wouldn’t hold you back there…
Where I work most of the units are limited to 52mph.
I wonder if the saving in fuel costs covers the five or so minutes per hour extra wages that are required, not to mention the extra two units that the depot must run to cover the time. I think it’s a false economy.
I’ve also been wondering about the ad-blue too. Fair enough it may reduce emissions, but how much of a carbon footprint does manufacturing it, distributing it, electricity to run the pumps, making the pumps, and weight carrying it about cause?
Judehamish:
Where I work most of the units are limited to 52mph.
I wonder if the saving in fuel costs covers the five or so minutes per hour extra wages that are required, not to mention the extra two units that the depot must run to cover the time. I think it’s a false economy.
I’ve also been wondering about the ad-blue too. Fair enough it may reduce emissions, but how much of a carbon footprint does manufacturing it, distributing it, electricity to run the pumps, making the pumps, and weight carrying it about cause?
From the research i did several years ago, It appeared the the production of adblu was creating eight times more Co2 than the emissions saving when it was used in trucks.
It’s just another con.
In most cases the biggest factor in fuel economy is the driver a year ago we got 10 new wagons set at 85kph after 3 months two of us were getting a far better fuel return so the boss upped them to 90kph 9 months on the two of us at 90 are still in the top bracket for fuel consumption and yes it is nice every now and then to blow your own trumpet
by Marianne Lee | Oct 10, 2012
Limiting trucks to 52mph saves fuel but there are drawbacks.
With diesel prices at an all time high, hard-pushed vehicle operators are always on the lookout for ways of reducing their costs and limiting speed would appear to be an obvious course of action.
Although the legal motorway speed limit for vehicles over 7.5 tonnes is 60 mph a European directive which came into force during the 1990s requires them to be limited to 56 mph - 80 kph. However, some transport companies have experimented by further limiting their vehicles to 52 mph in a bid to save fuel. While there is no doubt that vehicles operating on long motorway routes use less fuel, the drawbacks including longer journey times and safety concerns have caused most operators to conclude that limiting to 52 mph is counter productive as well as being unpopular with their drivers.
Longer journey times mean more wages for the driver and possibly an overnight stay if he runs out of hours on route, which would almost certainly wipe out any savings made on fuel. Congestion caused by the need for vehicles running at 56 to overtake their slower counterparts at only a 4 mph differential is another problem flagged up by many drivers. Joining motorways is another concern as it is more difficult to merge with traffic travelling in lane one without causing other drivers to slow down. However, HGVs working mainly on motorway routes can expect to use up to 18% less fuel by restricting speed to 52 mph, but it’s important to remember the saving can only be made when using the motorway, as speed limits are lower on dual carriageways and two-way roads at 50 mph and 40 mph respectively. Educating drivers to drive more economically may provide a better way of saving fuel overall.
Earlier this year The Mover reported that according to a survey conducted by Volvo, 50% of HGV drivers do care about the amount of fuel they use and drive as economically as they can. A further 40% said they occasionally considered fuel economy with only a very small percentage of professional drivers giving no consideration to fuel economy at all. The report went on to say that even experienced drivers can benefit from training in fuel efficient driving to the tune of around 7%, with even greater savings achieved by less experienced drivers.
Top tips for economical driving:
-Get the tyre pressures right;
-Set the vehicle up properly: cab gap, cab deflector and axle/trailer alignment;
-Try to get into top gear as soon as you can;
-Plan ahead, blend in with traffic and try not to come to a complete stop.
