I’ve just had a Eureka moment, I am now conviced that Carryfast does not exist 
It is really Rikki (who hardly ever posts as Rikki-uk) he is purposely winding everyone up to increase the hit rate on his site
It’s working too as every thread that Carryfast posts on turns into a multi page drama of epic proportions 
Nice one Rikki, that’s really thinking outside of the box (of frogs)
Trip 2 done on power mode and driving with a boot to the floor approach got 7.86mpg.
Run 3 done by me using a combination of auto and manual trying to be efficient as possible. I don’t think I’m a particulary brilliant driver and have never had any training in economical driving etc just thought about it a bit more than usual and got 8.79mpg.
Will do a run trying to use carryfasts method and see how it goes.
newmercman:
I’ve just had a Eureka moment, I am now conviced that Carryfast does not existIt is really Rikki (who hardly ever posts as Rikki-uk) he is purposely winding everyone up to increase the hit rate on his site
It’s working too as every thread that Carryfast posts on turns into a multi page drama of epic proportions
Nice one Rikki, that’s really thinking outside of the box (of frogs)
You have far to much time on your hands to be thinking these things. 
Perhaps carryfast can put a picture of himself on the aka thread to prove he is real.
newmercman:
Those d16 Volvo lumps are not as powerful as you think in American spec, 550hp/2250lb/ft is as big as they get, my CAT will ■■■■ all over them and get better fuel figures in the process. Anyone who has run a 15ltr twin turbo CAT will tell you that economy is not their strong pointThey’re also unreliable, mostly from unreliable emissions crap, but they love an injector cup too
I had a 610 FH16 for a couple of months before I came over here, it never impressed me at all, except for the badge and it had one of the worst gearchanges I’ve ever encountered, shift loads were very high and it was notchier than that awful EcoSplit from ZF, most unlike a Volvo gearbox
Carryfast your love of the Fuller does surprise me somewhat
Are you aware that the internals of the 13spd Fuller and the Volvo are identical
They’re both constant mesh transmissions, one has electronic gubbins on top, one doesn’t, unless it’s the Eaton UltraShift, in which case it is a dreadful thing and is the ultimate boat anchor
Maybe they’re a bit thirsty because the drivers are all using ZB’s idea of the reduced gearshifts careful with the clutch and upshifting it at 1,700-2000 rpm. 
.
As for the Fuller I was using Fullers (and Spicers) in those TM fire trucks before I ever drove a commercial.Then in everything from Foden gritters to Marathon,DAF ATI to MAN amongst a few others.The Mercs I drove had 16 speed synchros not EPS.Except for one which I drove for a driving assessment when I went for a job with European at Dover and told the guvnor there what I thought of it but still got offered the job,which as I’ve said elsewhere,then suddenly turned from euro work to uk work between getting the job offer and the start date so I told them ‘I wasn’t interested’ .Which may have been a good move thinking about being lumbered with driving a Merc with that awful box in it all over the UK let alone Europe. 
kr79:
Trip 2 done on power mode and driving with a boot to the floor approach got 7.86mpg.
Run 3 done by me using a combination of auto and manual trying to be efficient as possible. I don’t think I’m a particulary brilliant driver and have never had any training in economical driving etc just thought about it a bit more than usual and got 8.79mpg.
Will do a run trying to use carryfasts method and see how it goes.
Are you sure you took it all the way up to ZB’s proposed 2,000 rpm upshift point so as not to compromise the fuel consumption benefits of his theory.
newmercman:
I’ve just had a Eureka moment, I am now conviced that Carryfast does not existIt is really Rikki (who hardly ever posts as Rikki-uk) he is purposely winding everyone up to increase the hit rate on his site
It’s working too as every thread that Carryfast posts on turns into a multi page drama of epic proportions
Nice one Rikki, that’s really thinking outside of the box (of frogs)
I might be wrong but I’m sure I read somewhere that he prefers the idea of keeping the revs down on upshifts rather than going for the foot to the boards 2,000 rpm at every upshift approach.
Carryfast:
kr79:
Trip 2 done on power mode and driving with a boot to the floor approach got 7.86mpg.
Run 3 done by me using a combination of auto and manual trying to be efficient as possible. I don’t think I’m a particulary brilliant driver and have never had any training in economical driving etc just thought about it a bit more than usual and got 8.79mpg.
Will do a run trying to use carryfasts method and see how it goes.Are you sure you took it all the way up to ZB’s proposed 2,000 rpm upshift point so as not to compromise the fuel consumption benefits of his theory.
Let the computer do the work in auto power mode changes up at1900 rpm. Remember as its electronically controlled its has set parameters unlike an old fashioned accelerator pedal on a mechanical fuel pump,
newmercman:
I’ve just had a Eureka moment, I am now conviced that Carryfast does not existIt is really Rikki (who hardly ever posts as Rikki-uk) he is purposely winding everyone up to increase the hit rate on his site
It’s working too as every thread that Carryfast posts on turns into a multi page drama of epic proportions
Nice one Rikki, that’s really thinking outside of the box (of frogs)
I was harbouring suspicions that he was your alter-ego. This is based on the fact that his essays read like Truck magazine roadtests, but with the wrong conclusions deliberately drawn. Hmm…maybe the above post is a diversionary tactic.
kr79:
Trip 2 done on power mode and driving with a boot to the floor approach got 7.86mpg.
Run 3 done by me using a combination of auto and manual trying to be efficient as possible. I don’t think I’m a particulary brilliant driver and have never had any training in economical driving etc just thought about it a bit more than usual and got 8.79mpg.
Will do a run trying to use carryfasts method and see how it goes.
kr79- this a superb contribution to the thread.
Are you keeping tabs on the journey speeds and acceleration times?
Are you going to try skipping an extra gear when accelerating(where possible), to see if this improves the speed/economy?
Tony Taylor- how can you not like this? It’s better than Match of the Day! Well done kr79, for brightening up the forum, and beating the computer 8.79 to 8.38. Three points to you!
Done the same run trying to change up at 1350rpm changing down at 900rpm got 8.17mpg and the most stressful drive in a long time as it got there do quick and progress was so slow as you were making more noise than movement.
Each run took between 1.52 and 2.06 but I think it was more traffic volume than the truck that varied times.
I think it shows more than anything that an auto stands up to poor driving more than a manual. For my work I’d still take the I shift.
kr79:
Done the same run trying to change up at 1350rpm changing down at 900rpm got 8.17mpg and the most stressful drive in a long time as it got there do quick and progress was so slow as you were making more noise than movement.
Each run took between 1.52 and 2.06 but I think it was more traffic volume than the truck that varied times.
I think it shows more than anything that an auto stands up to poor driving more than a manual. For my work I’d still take the I shift.
For the umpteenth time around 1,500 not 1,350 maybe a bit more maybe a bit less depending on conditions but not 1,900 let alone 2,000.But no the computer won’t sort anything out it’ll just do exactly the same thing as mechanical fuelling in the case of foot to the floor full load acceleration up to peak power.The fuelling in that case will be for maximum load added to which is the increasing engine speed.
If you got that by lugging the thing as low as in that example (too low) it doesn’t take a genius to realise that it’s going to be much better when the engine is taken up a bit higher in the range without either lugging it too much or taking it too far beyond peak torque. 
So what I’ve been saying is right now I said change up at 1500 all along that’s why the truck duilders kindly put the green band on the rev counter. That’s what I do in general and followed Newmercmans theory of Droping a gear at the start of a climb and using the power to climb a hill and I got the best results on that trip by intervening.
I’ve never buried my boot to the floor to pull away I go for brisk but not harsh acceleration.
[zb]
anorak:kr79:
Trip 2 done on power mode and driving with a boot to the floor approach got 7.86mpg.
Run 3 done by me using a combination of auto and manual trying to be efficient as possible. I don’t think I’m a particulary brilliant driver and have never had any training in economical driving etc just thought about it a bit more than usual and got 8.79mpg.
Will do a run trying to use carryfasts method and see how it goes.kr79- this a superb contribution to the thread.
Are you keeping tabs on the journey speeds and acceleration times?
Are you going to try skipping an extra gear when accelerating(where possible), to see if this improves the speed/economy?Tony Taylor- how can you not like this? It’s better than Match of the Day! Well done kr79, for brightening up the forum, and beating the computer 8.79 to 8.38. Three points to you!
I think so far the figures show that using the idea of running the thing up to peak power in every gear uses more fuel not less .Which shouldn’t be too surprising. 
kr79:
So what I’ve been saying is right now I said change up at 1500 all along that’s why the truck duilders kindly put the green band on the rev counter. That’s what I do in general and followed Newmercmans theory of Droping a gear at the start of a climb and using the power to climb a hill and I got the best results on that trip by intervening.
I’ve never buried my boot to the floor to pull away I go for brisk but not harsh acceleration.
That’s exactly what I’ve been saying too but if you’ve read ZB’s posts ( and if I’ve read it right yours too )his argument is that the thing will be more economical if it’s driven up to peak power foot to the boards using less gears.There’s no way that you can be shortshifting the thing at 1,500 without using more gears than running it all the way up from around 1,000-1,100 to 1,900-2,000 in each gear which is what ZB says (and even more confusingly nmm seems to be agreeing with ) is the most economical way.
As for a decent driver being able to beat a computer that’s what the issue is all about.
I think it depends if you are going on a long motorway trip accelerating hard up the slip road up to say 55mph on a 300 mile journey then cruising on the limiter that bit more fuel is negligible over the journey but on a varied route like I did its more noticeable.
It’s a case of knowing when to use the power you have avalible and what gear to use. You give someone a 700bhp manual lorry and they drive it sensibly they will give you half decent fuel consumption but give some one it and they drive the nuts out if it they will give you fuel figures that will hurt your wallet.
As I said yesterday using economy mode and leaving it to its own devices it changed up at just over 1500 rpm down to about 1050rpm it went 3 5 7 9 11 12. And was in the green at all times. Now IMO I shift is the best automated box avalible the changes are lightning fast as its a constant mesh box and if it was a manual 12 speed Volvo I think I’d use more gears as I think you would lose more momentum as you couldn’t change gear fast enough.
I said yesterday I generally I change up at the top of the green depending on road conditions etc. At the end of the day I’ve never looked at driving as a science just what I think is right at the time.
Hi kr79,
Those tests you have just done backs up what NMM and I have been saying, horses for courses ,urban work an auto should win out. Motorway,s or in NMM case freeways it shouldn’t make much difference.
8.79 on urban work is very commendable, I know people who can’t get that going downhill with a sail up! Personal use of an I-Shift my average was 8.25 on urban ,but without too much concentration on motorway work I could get between 9.5 and 10 for the work we were doing, which usually involved running about half way home empty and then loaded (44t) back into base.
I think if you are dealing with London traffic and giving yourself parameters like that to work in, you must either be very enthusiastic or like me , verging on being an anorak!
Cheers Bassman
kr79,
As an aside to this topic, A rival company in my line of work put a batch of FM I-Shifts on the road. After a few months they couldn’t understand why the fuel returns were nowhere near Volvo’s claims. Volvo investigated and found that the drivers were running in manual all the time cos they said they got more revs that way. Retraining was arranged!
Cheers Bassman
To be fair there was a fair bit of a road running on the a12 and a406 and I’m sure if I was doing my more typical inner London driving it wouldn’t be nowhere near that. I don’t think I would get as Good as that normaly as I was thinking about it more than normal.
Must admit 380 is about right for my work and the I shift is a good send in traffic.
[zb] I can assure that if I was going to have an alter ego it would not be that of a Gritter Driver from Leatherhead
Now Carryfast, you really are making it difficult for yourself here, you argue with [zb]'s theory, but you don’t appear to realise what it is
So again, in plain English, here it is. He suggests changing up at max revs into the highest gear possible, so in effect it would be going all the way to 2200rpm and then changing two full gears which would drop the rpms back down to around the start of the torque curve’s plateau, then pulling hard through that until max rpms, so if you did that you would, in the case of the engine in the SFC graph, be hovering around the SFC figure of 200 all the time, but without losing so much momentum by shifting so many gears
In theory, this works, but he (and the rest of us apart from you) are wondering if it does indeed work in the real world, because maybe, just maybe, we could all learn something from this
So KR79 has kindly offered to be a lab rat for us 
kr79:
I think it depends if you are going on a long motorway trip accelerating hard up the slip road up to say 55mph on a 300 mile journey then cruising on the limiter that bit more fuel is negligible over the journey but on a varied route like I did its more noticeable.
It’s a case of knowing when to use the power you have avalible and what gear to use. You give someone a 700bhp manual lorry and they drive it sensibly they will give you half decent fuel consumption but give some one it and they drive the nuts out if it they will give you fuel figures that will hurt your wallet.As I said yesterday using economy mode and leaving it to its own devices it changed up at just over 1500 rpm down to about 1050rpm it went 3 5 7 9 11 12. And was in the green at all times.
Even if it’s distance work the basic rule of fuel efficiency for diesels is that the narrower band,either side of peak torque,that you can keep it to the more fuel efficient it will be and having plenty of manually operated close ratio gears is the best way of acheiving that ideal which has been the accepted ideal for truck design at least since the 1970’s.The only difference with something like a 730 Scania is that the fuel consumption penalties get a lot more severe the further from that ideal that they’re operated.The ability to use just half the gears available from a 12 speed box is just a result of the extremely flat torque curves (more like plateaus) that they seem to getting from modern engines.
But even in that case it would probably still help if the thing is kept as close as possible to either side of the centre of that plateau than letting it either lug down a lot lower or go far over that centre point and that ideal applies even more in the case of accelerating a fully freighted truck up an incline from low speed or standstill.Which is why if it was me ordering it I’d want that 18 speed fuller in it not an automated manual.
However the benefits of having something like the torque of a 600-700 + available is that it can maintain higher road speeds for the equivalent amount of engine speed.But driving the ‘nuts out of it’ is exactly what ZB’s theory is all about and it would be interesting to see what the fuel figures of that type of engine would be driven on the basis of foot to the floor up to peak power between each upshift.