Captain Caveman 76:
Franglais:
This means that drivers 2 and 3 would be sat staring at the rear doors of the one in front and ,therefore’, unable to anticipate any sudden change of direction of the lead vehicle by virtue of the fact that their forward vision would be none existent.Perhaps something like this would help?
Brilliant!
But I, and Id guess pyewacket, still wouldnt fancy sitting in the middle truck, but that`s a really clever bit of kit.
Imagine speeding up to the back of the lorry and your just looking at that screen and it froze on an all clear screen, you pull out right in front of a 40 ton artic thinking your path is clear.
Franglais:
pyewacket947v:
Hang on on a minute,let me get this right. 3 top weight lorries running in convoy,sorry, platoon. The lead vehicle will have a driver, who will also via wi-fi, control the speed and and braking of the 2 following lorries, both of which will have drivers to steer them, and to be available in case of a emergency.
So far so good.
A man in a suit(naturally) as just been on TV explaining that the 2 following trucks will save lots of fuel by taking advantage of the phenomenon known as ‘slipstreaming’.
I see a problem here. to take full advantage of this the following vehicles would have to quite literally ‘tailgate’’ the vehicle in front.
This means that drivers 2 and 3 would be sat staring at the rear doors of the one in front and ,therefore’, unable to anticipate any sudden change of direction of the lead vehicle by virtue of the fact that their forward vision would be none existent.
Again the lead vehicle would surely be using more fuel than under normal driving conditions due to having to ‘drag’ 2 others behind it.
Now take the position of the ‘driver’ in vehicle No 2. How long are a normal sane persons nerves going to be able to stand the strain of sitting inactive and wondering how long before you are reduced to a pulp between 2 38/44 ton trucks?
Back to the man in a suit, he also announced that the savings made in fuel cost would,‘of course.’ be passed on to the customer.!
yes,of course they will.
Back to driver No 1. will he be paid the same rate as drivers 2 and 3,?.After all they will only be responsible for 1 vehicle each, where as No 1 will in effect, be responsible for 3.
Y’know, the more i look at this the more i am convinced the whole idea belongs in the same place as guided bus lanes, there’s a weird one if ever there was.
Then of course we all know that companies who extol the virtues of ‘platoons’ of lorries will have no qualms in paying drivers in the following trucks, for doing very little.
No,make no mistake its all about cutting the wage bill and increasing the salaries and bonuses of the usual culprits.
They are all at it. try going into a branch of W H Smiths and expect to find someone to serve you . You’ll be lucky.
My last observation on this, i promise.
A platoon of lorries.! Whats that all about?. More to the point, who came up with it, and how much where they paid.?
Remember when the powers that govern us decided,after much deliberation, a dozen white papers, 2 0r 3 green ones, a number of ‘working breakfasts’ and a untold number of expense account lunches, to allow us to have C B radios.
‘Here in the UK,’ a man in a suit pompously proclaimed, ‘it will be known as Open Channel.’
I never heard it called that again.Frightening ain
t it? To get maximum effect of slipstreaming youve gotta be very close. Forward vision more or less zero. That car on the hard shoulder with a pair of legs poking out from under it that the lead driver sees at the last second?..Nuff said.
Overall fuel saving? Does the lead vehicle burn more? Can we come back to that please?
Driver two, sat very close to the doors of one, with 44ton of 3 running behind? Any volunteers? Id want a huge bonus to be sat in that seat, not half rate! :wink: Platoon? Maybe someone is mis-translating peloton from the cyclists riding in packs? Could be fuzzy hearing after those liquid lunches the civil servants are on? Overall fuel saving: I dont have any answer, but its not a simple problem. Often in energy problems its a simple concept. (not always so easy in practice). Go back to first principles: 1st law of thermodynamics, energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Its a zero sum. So it seems that if 2 & 3 are using less energy then 1 must be using more? Zero sum. Seems clear. But, I cheated on the 1st law, it refers to a closed system. We need to see how big the system were dealing with is.
thought experiment: does a long vehicle have more drag than a short vehicle? For a given vehicle width and height does the length affect the drag? Id guess thatd be minimal.(But I dont know). With 2 & 3 an inch of the bumper of the vehicle in front isnt it like one very long truck?
Maybe the system we consider for the first truck essentially the same system for all three trucks? So, bizarrely, maybe the followers do get a free/cheap ride at no real cost to the leader? It seems to work for skeins of flying birds.
Ill repeat I dont know that for a fact, but if you can put in a word for me with your M.P. Ill happily devise a few real life experiments to examine the theories. Do you want to volunteer to help? I promise I wont ask you do steer no 2 truck.
Yes, it does. Aerodynamics work with airflow, and to flow freely the air needs to move ‘around’ the obstacle with minimal interference. That is why most modern cars are essentially the same shape, to achieve maximum aerodynamic values. Essentially the vehicle forces the air apart, creating a hole in the air, which then needs to be filled again by air when the obstacle (the car) has ‘passed’ through the hole in the air. By making the shape of the car wedged and ‘tear shaped’, the air flows is guided as smooth as possible around the vehicle. A flat fronted vehicle (like a truck) will force the air apart and create turbulence, which stops the air from flowing smoothly, and thus creates drag. But even when the air is forced apart by a smooth wedge shape, the extra air around the vehicle increases the pressure of that air, and it will seek to find a ‘hole’ to equalise the pressure again. This is why cars have a tear drop shape ( and why ships hulls are the shape they are, as the same principle goes for water), to guide the air smoothly back into the hole that the car created. If the flow is interrupted, or extended, it creates turbulence, which creates drag, which uses more fuel.
the nodding donkey:
Franglais:
pyewacket947v:
Hang on on a minute,let me get this right. 3 top weight lorries running in convoy,sorry, platoon. The lead vehicle will have a driver, who will also via wi-fi, control the speed and and braking of the 2 following lorries, both of which will have drivers to steer them, and to be available in case of a emergency.
So far so good.
A man in a suit(naturally) as just been on TV explaining that the 2 following trucks will save lots of fuel by taking advantage of the phenomenon known as ‘slipstreaming’.
I see a problem here. to take full advantage of this the following vehicles would have to quite literally ‘tailgate’’ the vehicle in front.
This means that drivers 2 and 3 would be sat staring at the rear doors of the one in front and ,therefore’, unable to anticipate any sudden change of direction of the lead vehicle by virtue of the fact that their forward vision would be none existent.
Again the lead vehicle would surely be using more fuel than under normal driving conditions due to having to ‘drag’ 2 others behind it.
Now take the position of the ‘driver’ in vehicle No 2. How long are a normal sane persons nerves going to be able to stand the strain of sitting inactive and wondering how long before you are reduced to a pulp between 2 38/44 ton trucks?
Back to the man in a suit, he also announced that the savings made in fuel cost would,‘of course.’ be passed on to the customer.!
yes,of course they will.
Back to driver No 1. will he be paid the same rate as drivers 2 and 3,?.After all they will only be responsible for 1 vehicle each, where as No 1 will in effect, be responsible for 3.
Y’know, the more i look at this the more i am convinced the whole idea belongs in the same place as guided bus lanes, there’s a weird one if ever there was.
Then of course we all know that companies who extol the virtues of ‘platoons’ of lorries will have no qualms in paying drivers in the following trucks, for doing very little.
No,make no mistake its all about cutting the wage bill and increasing the salaries and bonuses of the usual culprits.
They are all at it. try going into a branch of W H Smiths and expect to find someone to serve you . You’ll be lucky.
My last observation on this, i promise.
A platoon of lorries.! Whats that all about?. More to the point, who came up with it, and how much where they paid.?
Remember when the powers that govern us decided,after much deliberation, a dozen white papers, 2 0r 3 green ones, a number of ‘working breakfasts’ and a untold number of expense account lunches, to allow us to have C B radios.
‘Here in the UK,’ a man in a suit pompously proclaimed, ‘it will be known as Open Channel.’
I never heard it called that again.Frightening ain
t it? To get maximum effect of slipstreaming youve gotta be very close. Forward vision more or less zero. That car on the hard shoulder with a pair of legs poking out from under it that the lead driver sees at the last second?..Nuff said.
Overall fuel saving? Does the lead vehicle burn more? Can we come back to that please?
Driver two, sat very close to the doors of one, with 44ton of 3 running behind? Any volunteers? Id want a huge bonus to be sat in that seat, not half rate! :wink: Platoon? Maybe someone is mis-translating peloton from the cyclists riding in packs? Could be fuzzy hearing after those liquid lunches the civil servants are on? Overall fuel saving: I dont have any answer, but its not a simple problem. Often in energy problems its a simple concept. (not always so easy in practice). Go back to first principles: 1st law of thermodynamics, energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Its a zero sum. So it seems that if 2 & 3 are using less energy then 1 must be using more? Zero sum. Seems clear. But, I cheated on the 1st law, it refers to a closed system. We need to see how big the system were dealing with is.
thought experiment: does a long vehicle have more drag than a short vehicle? For a given vehicle width and height does the length affect the drag? Id guess thatd be minimal.(But I dont know). With 2 & 3 an inch of the bumper of the vehicle in front isnt it like one very long truck?
Maybe the system we consider for the first truck essentially the same system for all three trucks? So, bizarrely, maybe the followers do get a free/cheap ride at no real cost to the leader? It seems to work for skeins of flying birds.
Ill repeat I dont know that for a fact, but if you can put in a word for me with your M.P. Ill happily devise a few real life experiments to examine the theories. Do you want to volunteer to help? I promise I wont ask you do steer no 2 truck.Yes, it does. Aerodynamics work with airflow, and to flow freely the air needs to move ‘around’ the obstacle with minimal interference. That is why most modern cars are essentially the same shape, to achieve maximum aerodynamic values. Essentially the vehicle forces the air apart, creating a hole in the air, which then needs to be filled again by air when the obstacle (the car) has ‘passed’ through the hole in the air. By making the shape of the car wedged and ‘tear shaped’, the air flows is guided as smooth as possible around the vehicle. A flat fronted vehicle (like a truck) will force the air apart and create turbulence, which stops the air from flowing smoothly, and thus creates drag. But even when the air is forced apart by a smooth wedge shape, the extra air around the vehicle increases the pressure of that air, and it will seek to find a ‘hole’ to equalise the pressure again. This is why cars have a tear drop shape ( and why ships hulls are the shape they are, as the same principle goes for water), to guide the air smoothly back into the hole that the car created. If the flow is interrupted, or extended, it creates turbulence, which creates drag, which uses more fuel.
The question Im trying to address is whether the increased fuel used by the first vehicle is equal/more/less than that saved by the following vehicles? Is it a zero sum? I fully accept that there will be some cost to the leader, but Id posit that it is a minimal increase, and that the followers will have a significant saving. Youre absolutely correct that flat fronted trucks with flat backs are as aerodynamic as a brick. There is resistance from "hitting" the air at the front as there is "suction" from the low air air pocket at the rear. So, a following vehicle filling that partial vacuum at the rear actually displaces that cause of "drag" doesnt it? It transfers that low pressure area to the rear of the following truck(s). It does not increase it if the following vehicles are very close. Three trucks in close convoy will have effectively ONE front and ONE rear. The total frontal resistance is the same whether or not the lead vehicle is followed snt it? Same with drag from the partial vacuum at the rear. Anyway, thats my contention.
The total length of the vehicle (or combination of vehicles) will have an effect tis true. That is going to total the same whether or not the vehicles are in close convoy or travelling separately, surely? Correct me please if Im wrong.
Again I make the offer to work for the government on researching this, unless you can show that I`ve already been proved wrong?
Will they be pre planed by firms as imagine a 730 Scania gets up front of a couple of 420 fleet motors does it slow to slowest lorry of does it ditch the straglers
OK. In our/my thought experiment-
V1 has to overcome frontal resistance, and side friction, but if closely followed has not got the rear suction it would have if travelling alone. It gains.
V2 has only side friction losses to contend with. Big winner.
V3 has side friction and suffers from the drag at it`s rear. But no frontal resistance. Winner compared with running alone.
Its not a free lunch Im describing, its not a perpetual motion device. It is my poor description of a non-zero game. Tell me where Im wrong and I`ll listen.
Captain Caveman 76:
Franglais:
This means that drivers 2 and 3 would be sat staring at the rear doors of the one in front and ,therefore’, unable to anticipate any sudden change of direction of the lead vehicle by virtue of the fact that their forward vision would be none existent.Perhaps something like this would help?
Try sitting a foot away from your TV. Can you still see the picture clearly?
Me, I can see some of it clearly but very little of the whole clearly. Do try this for yourself and let us know how you get on.
so how does it get back in after overtaking ? will it have to wait until the rear truck is a trailer length past the lorry it has just past before moving back over
And what the zb is it going to do if brainless barry bulker hangs him out in lane two ? you can hardly drop back and and tuck in behind if your three artics long, all manner of [zb]Wits will be tailgating barry. it will be stuck in lane two for eternity
Bluey Circles:
so how does it get back in after overtaking ? will it have to wait until the rear truck is a trailer length past the lorry it has just past before moving back overAnd what the zb is it going to do if brainless barry bulker hangs him out in lane two ? you can hardly drop back and and tuck in behind if your three artics long, all manner of [zb]Wits will be tailgating barry. it will be stuck in lane two for eternity
Elephant racing was never so much fun…
Wiretwister:
Captain Caveman 76:
Franglais:
This means that drivers 2 and 3 would be sat staring at the rear doors of the one in front and ,therefore’, unable to anticipate any sudden change of direction of the lead vehicle by virtue of the fact that their forward vision would be none existent.Perhaps something like this would help?
Try sitting a foot away from your TV. Can you still see the picture clearly?
Me, I can see some of it clearly but very little of the whole clearly. Do try this for yourself and let us know how you get on.
My telly only has a 14 inch screen. Unless I put my eyeball on the glass, I can see all of it.
Bluey Circles:
so how does it get back in after overtaking ? will it have to wait until the rear truck is a trailer length past the lorry it has just past before moving back overAnd what the zb is it going to do if brainless barry bulker hangs him out in lane two ? you can hardly drop back and and tuck in behind if your three artics long, all manner of [zb]Wits will be tailgating barry. it will be stuck in lane two for eternity
I love you one million times
This technology started as far back as the 70s, i myself was starting to get involved in this at the then TRRL “civil service” back in the late 80s early 90s thats where it got picked up by the truck manufactures. Now its back with the now “private” TRL to trial in the UK for a contract of 8.1m and why would’nt you . It will not work it will be like John Presscot’s “Bus Lane” you can not allow for the “HUMAN BRAIN” that includes me and every one, and all reading this, yes you . But there is a system that already exists … Its called " A TRAIN " 
But there is a problem with that (Birmingham) someone whent and built over the key point in the central archery of the network and put roads and cycle paths that took rail freight from north to south, east and west . So for the time being your jobs are safe’ ish .
Bluey Circles:
so how does it get back in after overtaking ? will it have to wait until the rear truck is a trailer length past the lorry it has just past before moving back overAnd what the zb is it going to do if brainless barry bulker hangs him out in lane two ? you can hardly drop back and and tuck in behind if your three artics long, all manner of [zb]Wits will be tailgating barry. it will be stuck in lane two for eternity
Also how to get out for that overtake?
Lead driver realises that he is gaining on a slower vehicle, maybe radios back to last vehicle “mirrors, indicator on and pull out when clear”. ? So they’ll be moving out as a block well before an individual truck would?
I can see one sort of solution tho. Four lane m-ways. Trucks would enter normally, get up to speed (with reduced fuel we’ll be going faster) then slip onto the back of a convoy in lane 4. Lane 4 is now dedicated to convoy trucks all with good power/weight ratios. All cars in lane 3 would give way to trucks moving across the lanes.
Problems solved! What could possibly go wrong?
Edit. [emoji2]
This is being discussed and commented on in other motoring places where they aint all lorry drivers, the opinion of the majority of the motoring public and their spokespersons in organisations vary between extremely wary to absolutely dead set against this idea, for some reason they don’t fancy the idea of a 200ft moving close convoy where the drivers following closely can see bugger all and they have to get on and off our massively overtrafficked motorways, can’t imagine why?
Might as well ■■■■ that money up the wall letting the usual suspects play around do experiments have meetings and write reports…oh wait.
Good for them too, if someone’s stupid enough to fritter (cos it’'s their personal money they’re ■■■■■■■ of course 
) £millions away like this, why wouldn’t you take advantage and go play, beats the hell out of a working for a living.
30 odd years ago i had an away day in me artic bulker, together with another driver from another company (low loader if i recall), some boffin from the ministry was testing out those new mobile weight pads.
It had already been requested and authorised that we make sure one end of the lorry was overloaded, so we drove round to several DOT/VOSA/Ministry whatever they called themselves at the time roadside axle weighers with said boffin in tow, and spent an enjoyable day sodding about comparing the readings from the two weighing devices, but we’re talking £hundreds/few thousand on a sensible experiment, not millions.
This platooning lark is no different just the budget is into kerching territory, its an extended away year or two for umpteen boffins, various experts and companies with their fingers in the pie, and as many hangers on (driving experts) as can wheedle their way in at the practical test end, but we’re in the age of monopoly money and lunatics in charge, so a few thousand quid from the early 80’s is now umpteen £million.
Captain Caveman 76:
UKtramp:
the nodding donkey:
I remember delivering steel coils to a factory (I think they made cans ?) which had small powered trollies which moved the coils from the warehouse to the various machines, guided by ‘tracks’ hiden in the floor. They were fully autonomous, and only needed human interference if somebody put something (like a pallet or such) over the pathway of the trolly. And that was over 20 years ago.Its becoming commonplace to replace traditional racking with either mobile racking or a computerised shuttle that sends and retrieves the pallets automatically, they even control it all by SCADA, saves warehouse ops and damage to the racking by clumsy FLT drivers. It all makes sense as do driver less trucks.
Automated warehousing does have its limitations of course, such as max SKU retrieval leading to problems in the event of unexpected demand. Using the automated warehouse as an analogy of driveless vehicles on the motorway, throw a few untrained forklift drivers in here for good measure and you won’t need a good imagination to guess what would happen.
Agreed.
My mind turned to this question while I was driving on Friday, and I’m convinced this scheme will no more do away with the driver than the autopilot has done away with the pilot.
The main problem is that road drivers often need to interact and negotiate with each other through eye contact and the subtle “body language” of the vehicle.
Except for depot-to-depot transfers on highly regularised routes (of which even motorways do not necessarily always meet that standard).
To sum up then, some agree with it & some don’t, its coming and there is nothing we can do about that but don’t give up your licence just yet.
Franglais:
Captain Caveman 76:
UKtramp:
Radar19:
I believe we will see fully electric trucks before we see self driving ones. I have no doubt that self driving will happen as the endless march towards automation continues. Something like this would suit the large open roads of America but the tight, congested roads on our little rock will prove a challenge for the programmers now.I think this is a very realistic point of view. Britain could well spearhead the technology but more likely it will be implemented on more suitable roads that we do not currently have. The technology of batteries is advancing at the moment, for trucks though I feel the fuel cell will not be battery driven, more likely hydrogen powered for the mileage they need to travel.
From what I remember of hydrogen as a fuel source, it’s energy hungry to create and therefore rather expensive. It’s also quite rare, which means it has to be kept cool and under pressure to keep it in a liquid state, which given its volatility, doesn’t inspire me to sit on a tank of the stuff whilst doing 70mph down the motorway! Probably not the answer at this moment in time.
I think you`re right. No hydrogen fuel cells at this instant.
Hydrogen is not really a fuel “source” is it? It is really a means of storing energy produced by other means: electricity is used to make hydrogen to be reconverted back to electrical energy on a vehicle. It
s advantage, as I remember it, is that fuels cells and hydrogen tanks are light for the amount of energy they produce. Hence good for rockets where big power and little weight required. Costs would need to come drastically to be of use in mass transportation. Producing and transporting hydrogen seems to be expensive. I dont see its inflammability as a major concern: there are natural gas and LPG vehicles already, and petrol isnt without hazard. Even if hydrogen were many times as inflammable, the others would still be enough to cook your goose!
Hydrogen produces no pollution at point of use, but it`s production may or may not be “green” depending on how the electricity used to produce it was generated.
Toyota Mirai hydrogen fuel cell car, on sale now, best only used round london,thats where all the filling stations are apparently
UKtramp:
Franglais:
Hydrogen is not really a fuel “source” is it? It is really a means of storing energy produced by other means: electricity is used to make hydrogen to be reconverted back to electrical energy on a vehicle. Its advantage, as I remember it, is that fuels cells and hydrogen tanks are light for the amount of energy they produce. Hence good for rockets where big power and little weight required. Costs would need to come drastically to be of use in mass transportation. Producing and transporting hydrogen seems to be expensive. I dont see its inflammability as a major concern: there are natural gas and LPG vehicles already, and petrol isnt without hazard. Even if hydrogen were many times as inflammable, the others would still be enough to cook your goose!
Hydrogen produces no pollution at point of use, but it`s production may or may not be “green” depending on how the electricity used to produce it was generated.Seems a pretty logical choice to me, I think all the boxes are ticked with hydrogen other than its cost. That should come down price wise as an alternative to diesel & petrol.
Hydrogen, the fuel of the future.
No, wait…
Yes there are a couple of draw backs to overcome donkey.
tonyj105:
Toyota Mirai hydrogen fuel cell car, on sale now, best only used round london,thats where all the filling stations are apparently
I’m not familiar enough with hydrogen fuel cells to be able to discuss them properly. I do know that the hydrogen isn’t burnt like in standard engines, it flows between two contacts, generating enough electricity to charge a battery.
I’d always believed that rare materials like hydrogen didn’t flow very well. Any ADR drivers with experience of it, I’d much appreciate your knowledge on this.