Stobarts fuel costs

If a driver is worried about the cost of fuel to his/her employer, then he’s in the wrong job.

If an employer chooses to run xyz type of vehicle and it’s not efficient enough for the job, then why should the driver worry, after all, he didn’t choose to use that type of manufacturer?

If companies are worried about fuel costs, then what has been said before by Ady1 that they should cut down on the distance with empty running should apply. Planning should also share the burden on costs.

As usual, the driver is taking the blame here.

Ken.

repton:

caledoniandream:
I have to agree with Wheelnut, fuelcost are the highest cost in trucking (30% from the turnover paid on fuel is nothing strange)

If the fuel cost for my wagon was as low as 30% of turnover I would be delighted!

caledoniandream:
Paul, fuelcost and profit are defiantly linked together

In the short term and on a small scale, yes. If fuel dropped a couple of pence a litre then the jobs I do in my wagon this week will be more profitable for me. But if they stay a couple of pence a litre lower then the rates offered will soon adjust to compensate for that leaving me making the same profit I was before.

Conversley is they go up a couple of pence a litre I’ll make less money this week, but as all the other hauliers are in the same boat rates will (eventually) creep up to compensate for it again leaving me making near enough the same profit I was before.

Paul

Paul if you can safe anything on fuel usage without much effort it’s pure profit, isn’t it
We prove at the moment that some of our truck have a reduction in the fuel usage of 1-3% without investing a penny in anything, only good instructions, decent planning (sometimes is the longer road more fuel effiecient, less hills etc.) and clear measurement.
We are open about it the driver can see what he is doing and i must say 96% of the drivers come around the new way of thinking.
Some are habbits just got in your routine for years and if people show their effect, you get a wake up call.
Little effort, substantial saving.

Mike-C:

Wheel Nut:
Why Stobarts fuel costs?
Why not Mel Jones fuel costs?
Why not Wincanton fuel costs

Fuel costs everyone the same, the main part of a drivers job is to use as little as possible, yet you still get people saying they do not care about the price. Robbies Dad showed me his software using CANbus and he could slow a truck down in Germany from another country.

supatrak.com/case_studies/vi … _transport

If we all drive sensibly, the companies will not have the need to fit these systems. I was told many years ago that the fuel was the biggest expense followed by drivers wages, so if you wanted to be paid more money, do not waste the fuel :stuck_out_tongue:

I don’t share in the roundabout protests or the blockading of refineries but a lorry has always taken about one third of it’s revenue to run it.

You make it sound a black and white fact that lower fuel costs equal more profit and provide a nice graph, and infact that isn’t the case by far.In a text book scenario some one who does a journey each day and can improve his mpg that can only lead to savings as long as the time taken to do the journey doesn’t outweigh the savings on fuel. In reality both come into play, time V’s fuel usage. Jonnyenglishpants says

It’s a problem get there as fast as you can but save fuel, maybe we should talk to the irish?

Thats the same problem for most of us . Interestingly its come into play for Stobarts a lot later then for other hauliers, at least any sort of public show of it.
When he says ‘maybe we should talk to the Irish’ and i’m not trying to stereotype anyone at all ,its no good doing 10 mpg at 50 mph when you’ll miss the ferry home and cost the truck a lost days work. 9 mpg at 56 mph maybe more cost effective.
In the mean time everyones doing SAFED courses,running teardrop trailers, and limiting trucks speed and still wanting you to be there yesterday, nothing new there. All you’ve got to do is as they ask :smiley:

So will I have to fit a zb CANBus Interface on the non existent zb isotrak (whatever the zb they are :open_mouth: :laughing: :laughing: ) in that old Detroit two stroke powered FTF with it’s 13 speed fuller and no speed limiter which I intend to use if I’m ever daft enough to go back to work in this brave new zb’d up world. :unamused: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

i think today was a prime example of what im getting at,
arrive for work to be told theres about 7 stobart drivers too many for the amount of work, runs,whats new
then arrives a agency driver,weve now got 7 stobart drivers too many and 1 agency driver,hes asked if hes booked in, he says yes, they check and he has been booked in
so what do they do :question: , youve guessed it,they sign his book up for 10 hrs and send him home.
he rubs his hands together as its 190 pounds[according to him for s.f.a],but i bet its more because you have to pay the agency.
so there you are because its got nothing to do with a driver its fine to just chuck 200+ pounds away for nothing :exclamation: :exclamation: :exclamation: :exclamation:

  1. arrive at my trailer swap change trailers, hand in paper work and get told to collect 50 miles away, rings my own office to check its o.k, yes go there and collect a load that fine.
    gets there and yard bloke says what you doing driv, come to collect a load, :confused: yard bloke says i dont think so driv, i requested 3 trucks for 3 loads, your no4 so theres no load,theyve gone, so rings in and says thers no load, let us check, no there isnt come straight back,
    so thats 50 miles to the collection empty, 174 miles back empty=224 miles empty :open_mouth: :open_mouth: .
  • the extra wages of me spending time to drive there, sort the job out.
    id hate t think how much moneys been wasted in one day, shed loads.
    so to me the ones going on about saving fuel , money are looking at the wrong folks the drivers, maybee they should look at there own buddies in the offices :exclamation: :exclamation: :exclamation: :exclamation: :exclamation:

Exactly why I say planning should share the burden.

Companies need to look a bit closer to home at times.

Ken.

ady1:
i think today was a prime example of what im getting at,
arrive for work to be told theres about 7 stobart drivers too many for the amount of work, runs,whats new
then arrives a agency driver,weve now got 7 stobart drivers too many and 1 agency driver,hes asked if hes booked in, he says yes, they check and he has been booked in
so what do they do :question: , youve guessed it,they sign his book up for 10 hrs and send him home.
he rubs his hands together as its 190 pounds[according to him for s.f.a],but i bet its more because you have to pay the agency.
so there you are because its got nothing to do with a driver its fine to just chuck 200+ pounds away for nothing :exclamation: :exclamation: :exclamation: :exclamation:

  1. arrive at my trailer swap change trailers, hand in paper work and get told to collect 50 miles away, rings my own office to check its o.k, yes go there and collect a load that fine.
    gets there and yard bloke says what you doing driv, come to collect a load, :confused: yard bloke says i dont think so driv, i requested 3 trucks for 3 loads, your no4 so theres no load,theyve gone, so rings in and says thers no load, let us check, no there isnt come straight back,
    so thats 50 miles to the collection empty, 174 miles back empty=224 miles empty :open_mouth: :open_mouth: .
  • the extra wages of me spending time to drive there, sort the job out.
    id hate t think how much moneys been wasted in one day, shed loads.
    so to me the ones going on about saving fuel , money are looking at the wrong folks the drivers, maybee they should look at there own buddies in the offices :exclamation: :exclamation: :exclamation: :exclamation: :exclamation:

Maybe they should fit a zb Isotrac with a CANBus interface in the office.But it would be interesting to see what the firm’s accountants say at the end of the year when they add all of the losses due to zb ups to the balance sheet and try to get them back off the tax man. :open_mouth: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

i doubt a canbus-interface in a office is going to flash up, AGENCY DRIVER PAID £200 FOR NOTHING, more like driver of lt2342 BRAKED HARD ONCE TODAY COSTING THE COMPANY 2P,deduct him £3.50 today :wink: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: .
n.b i dont know wht im getting upset abput stobarts fuel bonus, i dont even get it :wink: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: .
in actual fact ive had no pay rise, so instead of being operations director for the week, ill just be a driver, hang on i am one :wink:

Quinny:
Exactly why I say planning should share the burden.

Companies need to look a bit closer to home at times.

Ken.

there is no real way to save fuel with driver imput, hey auto gear boxes ect. we all run at 56mph ish ( apart from some hauliers) the way to save fuel, and franckley i don’t give a toss about the bonus, the way forward is planning and till we get are head round this, we’ll burn excessive amouts of fuel because of inept morons on the end of a phone, do you think that daf , scania, man volvo ect make fuel inefficient log burners no!! they make state of the art trucks that are designed to save fuel, all we have to do is drive proffessionally, all they have do is plan and till they do that we’ll burn lot’s of fuel.

dessy:
Jonny e p the Canbus is not installed to monitor fuel use,its only there to monitor driver style the Trainers at Crick said they are not really interested in MPG as if they monitor driving style in turn improve MPG :wink: all for the princely sum of £3.50 a day if you score well :unamused:

drive style = fuel usage.

jonnyenglishpants:

Quinny:
Exactly why I say planning should share the burden.

Companies need to look a bit closer to home at times.

Ken.

there is no real way to save fuel with driver imput, hey auto gear boxes ect. we all run at 56mph ish ( apart from some hauliers) the way to save fuel, and franckley i don’t give a toss about the bonus, the way forward is planning and till we get are head round this, we’ll burn excessive amouts of fuel because of inept morons on the end of a phone, do you think that daf , scania, man volvo ect make fuel inefficient log burners no!! they make state of the art trucks that are designed to save fuel, all we have to do is drive proffessionally, all they have do is plan and till they do that we’ll burn lot’s of fuel.

It really is that simple. :sunglasses:Instead of burn,lets say waste. :stuck_out_tongue:

There are two subjects under discussion here, the first is fuel economy, nothing much wrong with anyone trying to maximise that, every business should be controlling their costs, the number one cost in road transport is fuel, reduce wasteful use of this precious commodity & you make more money, that’s why Eddie & everyone else run lorries, to make money FFS :unamused:

Secondly high fuel prices should not make a difference to profit margins, in fact higher fuel prices can make you more money, yeah right he’s lost the plot I hear you say, but no, any transport company quoting for a contract should have a fuel surcharge in the rate, they have no idea how much fuel will rise in price for the duration of the contract, so they set the rate at the fuel price of the day, at an mpg figure of say 8mpg, as fuel goes up the fuel surcharge kicks in, keeping the percentage of fuel costs to miles travelled the same as it was on day one, now if they can stretch that 8mpg into 9mpg they’re making even more profit as the fuel surcharge goes into the bank instead of the tank :wink:

It amazes me that there are still drivers out there who don’t give a toss how much fuel they use, surely as professionals it is our job to get the very best from the equipment provided? A printer wouldn’t pour 10 gallons of ink down the drain, a painter wouldn’t pour 10 gallons of paint down the drain etc etc etc, so why is it acceptable for a driver to do just that with diesel? Not only that, your lorry will go down the road & climb hills much better if it’s driven properly, it’s also a lot less stressful to the driver, all this nonsense about going better up hills if you rev the nuts off of a lorry is just complete bollox, maybe 30yrs ago with a naturally aspirated engine, but not in a modern lorry, torque is what gets you up a hill, that’s all at the bottom end of the green band, all you do by going above this is make more noise, each time you change gear on a hill you not only use more fuel, you also lose speed.

Mike C, the overall journey speed difference between somebody thrashing the nuts off their motor & someone driving it as it was designed to be driven will work the opposite to the way you suggest, driven properly the lorry will actually be quicker, as long as the maximum speed is the same.

newmercman:
There are two subjects under discussion here, the first is fuel economy, nothing much wrong with anyone trying to maximise that, every business should be controlling their costs, the number one cost in road transport is fuel, reduce wasteful use of this precious commodity & you make more money, that’s why Eddie & everyone else run lorries, to make money FFS :unamused:

Secondly high fuel prices should not make a difference to profit margins, in fact higher fuel prices can make you more money, yeah right he’s lost the plot I hear you say, but no, any transport company quoting for a contract should have a fuel surcharge in the rate, they have no idea how much fuel will rise in price for the duration of the contract, so they set the rate at the fuel price of the day, at an mpg figure of say 8mpg, as fuel goes up the fuel surcharge kicks in, keeping the percentage of fuel costs to miles travelled the same as it was on day one, now if they can stretch that 8mpg into 9mpg they’re making even more profit as the fuel surcharge goes into the bank instead of the tank :wink:

It amazes me that there are still drivers out there who don’t give a toss how much fuel they use, surely as professionals it is our job to get the very best from the equipment provided? A printer wouldn’t pour 10 gallons of ink down the drain, a painter wouldn’t pour 10 gallons of paint down the drain etc etc etc, so why is it acceptable for a driver to do just that with diesel? Not only that, your lorry will go down the road & climb hills much better if it’s driven properly, it’s also a lot less stressful to the driver, all this nonsense about going better up hills if you rev the nuts off of a lorry is just complete bollox, maybe 30yrs ago with a naturally aspirated engine, but not in a modern lorry, torque is what gets you up a hill, that’s all at the bottom end of the green band, all you do by going above this is make more noise, each time you change gear on a hill you not only use more fuel, you also lose speed.

Mike C, the overall journey speed difference between somebody thrashing the nuts off their motor & someone driving it as it was designed to be driven will work the opposite to the way you suggest, driven properly the lorry will actually be quicker, as long as the maximum speed is the same.

So they set a ‘fuel price’ surcharge cluase in the contract on european general haulage work and every time the British government puts another load of tax on road fuel it kicks in :open_mouth: :unamused: :laughing: At which point the contractor says no thanks and goes somewhere else like Vlad’s transport services based in Transylvania.As for hills it’s power which gets a truck up a climb not torque.There’s a subtle difference and running a truck at a hill and climbing at max power doe’snt mean revving the nuts off it.Fuel consumption is based on Accelerator position not engine revs and I’d bet you a full tank of diesel that given the same weight and the same spec truck I’d go up the same climb faster,at less accelerator application, and using less fuel by downshifting back to max power revs every time the engine falls back to max torque.

newmercman:
Mike C, the overall journey speed difference between somebody thrashing the nuts off their motor & someone driving it as it was designed to be driven will work the opposite to the way you suggest, driven properly the lorry will actually be quicker, as long as the maximum speed is the same.

I’m not suggesting that anyone thrashes the nuts off their motor, or that doing so will be quicker. You might need to re read what i typed.


At 5252 RPM the Torque and Power are exactly the same.

Torque is turning force.

Power is about how much Work is being done by that Torque. You cannot have one without the other.

No engine has more horsepower than torque at 1600 rpm. It’s simply impossible.

Volvo FH12
Max Power 420hp @ 1750rpm
Max Torque 1475Lbft @ 1200rpm

A large diesel engine usually cannot get above 2,000 RPM, but has huge torque because of the long stroke. The torque is what lets your engine pull a heavy load up a hill.

The bigger the bang is what makes the crankshaft turn faster, but at what cost to fuel consumption. To get that big bang we have to feed the engine more food.

Without taking my horse outside and tying a weight of about 330 lbs to it and seeing if it can pull it up a slope in one minute. I will accept what I have already been told as a kid.

Wheel Nut:

At 5252 RPM the Torque and Power are exactly the same.

Torque is turning force.

Power is about how much Work is being done by that Torque. You cannot have one without the other.

No engine has more horsepower than torque at 1600 rpm. It’s simply impossible.
No not true!

What?
Volvo FH12
Max Power 420hp @ 1750rpm
Max Torque 1475Lbft @ 1200rpm

A large diesel engine usually cannot get above 2,000 RPM, but has huge torque because of the long stroke. The torque is what lets your engine pull a heavy load up a hill.

The bigger the bang is what makes the crankshaft turn faster, but at what cost to fuel consumption. To get that big bang we have to feed the engine more food.

Without taking my horse outside and tying a weight of about 330 lbs to it and seeing if it can pull it up a slope in one minute. I will accept what I have already been told as a kid.

Wheel Nut:

At 5252 RPM the Torque and Power are exactly the same.

Torque is turning force.

Power is about how much Work is being done by that Torque. You cannot have one without the other.

No engine has more horsepower than torque at 1600 rpm. It’s simply impossible.

Volvo FH12
Max Power 420hp @ 1750rpm
Max Torque 1475Lbft @ 1200rpm

A large diesel engine usually cannot get above 2,000 RPM, but has huge torque because of the long stroke. The torque is what lets your engine pull a heavy load up a hill.

The bigger the bang is what makes the crankshaft turn faster, but at what cost to fuel consumption. To get that big bang we have to feed the engine more food.

Without taking my horse outside and tying a weight of about 330 lbs to it and seeing if it can pull it up a slope in one minute. I will accept what I have already been told as a kid.

“No engine has more horsepower than torque at 1600 rpm. It’s simply impossible”.
Thats quite a statement! I dare say there may be an engineer out there who will beg to differ.

Dunno then?:

Wheel Nut:

At 5252 RPM the Torque and Power are exactly the same.

Torque is turning force.

Power is about how much Work is being done by that Torque. You cannot have one without the other.

No engine has more horsepower than torque at 1600 rpm. It’s simply impossible.

Volvo FH12
Max Power 420hp @ 1750rpm
Max Torque 1475Lbft @ 1200rpm

A large diesel engine usually cannot get above 2,000 RPM, but has huge torque because of the long stroke. The torque is what lets your engine pull a heavy load up a hill.

The bigger the bang is what makes the crankshaft turn faster, but at what cost to fuel consumption. To get that big bang we have to feed the engine more food.

Without taking my horse outside and tying a weight of about 330 lbs to it and seeing if it can pull it up a slope in one minute. I will accept what I have already been told as a kid.

“No engine has more horsepower than torque at 1600 rpm. It’s simply impossible”.
Thats quite a statement! I dare say there may be an engineer out there who will beg to differ.

Engineers don’t come much better than anyone who’s actuallly spent plenty of time road testing fire trucks to make sure that they’ll get to the fire fast enough :laughing: :laughing: .Torque is the measurement of an engine’s ability to do work power is the RATE/SPEED at which it’s being done.At max power an engine will usually be putting out around 10% less torque than at max torque.However at max torque it’s nowhere near it’s power peak so it’s doing 10% more work but probably more than 10% slower in addition to which you’ve got to factor in the torque figure at the wheels not the crankshaft/flywheel by running an engine at max power in a lower gear than at max torque in a higher one.The end result of all that in the real world means that a truck will definitely pull a zb lot better at max power or just a bit under than it will at max torque and at lighter engine loading in a lower gear thereby requiring less accelerator application.As for where that torque comes from it’s a mixture of a decent sized engine’s stroke and the pressures which you can be produced in the cylinders and the more cylinders and the higher those pressures the more torque and power it’ll produce.Hence the reason why a turbo charged 8 cylinder diesel like in a Scanny 141/2 can turn out more power and torque than a non turbo 6 cylinder Gardner in a British heap of the same era.I know that because I’m part Irish :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: Yes I know the Scanny will drink a bit more diesel but it’ll go a zb lot faster uphill. :open_mouth: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

Dunno then?:

Wheel Nut:

At 5252 RPM the Torque and Power are exactly the same.

Torque is turning force.

Power is about how much Work is being done by that Torque. You cannot have one without the other.

No engine has more horsepower than torque at 1600 rpm. It’s simply impossible.

Volvo FH12
Max Power 420hp @ 1750rpm
Max Torque 1475Lbft @ 1200rpm

A large diesel engine usually cannot get above 2,000 RPM, but has huge torque because of the long stroke. The torque is what lets your engine pull a heavy load up a hill.

The bigger the bang is what makes the crankshaft turn faster, but at what cost to fuel consumption. To get that big bang we have to feed the engine more food.

Without taking my horse outside and tying a weight of about 330 lbs to it and seeing if it can pull it up a slope in one minute. I will accept what I have already been told as a kid.

“No engine has more horsepower than torque at 1600 rpm. It’s simply impossible”.
Thats quite a statement! I dare say there may be an engineer out there who will beg to differ.

Power versus torque.
youtube.com/watch?v=I-cM80_qs98

youtube.com/watch?v=hNwi3aNR … re=related

Dunno then?:

Wheel Nut:

At 5252 RPM the Torque and Power are exactly the same.

Torque is turning force.

Power is about how much Work is being done by that Torque. You cannot have one without the other.

No engine has more horsepower than torque at 1600 rpm. It’s simply impossible.
No not true!

What?
Volvo FH12
Max Power 420hp @ 1750rpm
Max Torque 1475Lbft @ 1200rpm

A large diesel engine usually cannot get above 2,000 RPM, but has huge torque because of the long stroke. The torque is what lets your engine pull a heavy load up a hill.

The bigger the bang is what makes the crankshaft turn faster, but at what cost to fuel consumption. To get that big bang we have to feed the engine more food.

Without taking my horse outside and tying a weight of about 330 lbs to it and seeing if it can pull it up a slope in one minute. I will accept what I have already been told as a kid.

Explain yourself then!

Some important numbers;

Horsepower = torque X rpm / 5252

I am using proven mathematical facts from John Watt, Watt are you using? :wink:

“a strong horse could lift 150 pounds to a height of 220 feet in 1 minute.”

One horsepower is also commonly expressed as 550 pounds one foot in one second or 33,000

pounds one foot in one minute.

Three sets of numbers all saying the same thing.

5252 is the important number.

Torque is twisting or turning, of a wheel, a propshaft or a flywheel and all commonly

used as a comparison between engine output.

How to measure the capacity of a cylinder.

The cylinder bore x the cylinder stroke x the number of cylinders will give the swept

volume or cubic capacity of the engine.

Cylinder bore is measured using the mathmatical equation πr²

Ï€ = 3.1415926535 or 3.142 for simplicity

So in my example;πr² multiplied by 6.55(radius of the bore in cm) multiplied by 6.55

(radius of the bore in cm) multiplied by 15 (length of stroke in cm) (1 stroke = 180

degrees of the crankshaft)

So Volvo have actually had the badge on the door wrong for years;

Volvo FH12131.96895

using Volvos figures of a 131mm bore and a 150mm stroke

From these figures we can work out the compression ratio by adding the swept volume to

the volume of the combustion chamber plus the head gasket volume(thickness) plus the

piston deck height/ piston top volume and divided by the combustion chamber volume.

Thanks very much for letting me exercise my brain, it kept me out of the pub on a bank

holiday.