The big problem here is that on the average, they have no idea how a car behaves, except on straight, dry, wade-laned pavement with a car immediately in front of them to tell them how fast to go and when to stop.

How many dock doors will have to be rebuilt?

Are there safety issues with fork-trucks ans stuff with that much weight behind the wheels when the load in the nose is gone?

And so forth.

How about we think the thing ALL the way through.

In regard to CO2, I am convinced it does not play an important role in our climate so every attempt to reduce it is superfluous and very costly.
If we take away the uncertainties our carbon industry currently faces because of the political arm twisting and threats, there would be more product available resulting in lower prices.
We can not survive in our modern cities without a well organized distribution system so my advice is to stop killing it.

The tests use an add-on – necessarily “hollow”. Boxes built with the boat-tail, of course, would not be. Loss of cube would be negligible – and when you’re loading out a box, you rarely fill the butt-end to the ceiling, anyway, unless you’re hauling light goods.

American firms building similar – also offer mid-body skirts to grab some of the aero fuel economy inherent in possum-bellies.

Redesigning the doors, as previously mentioned, would also add expense as well as requiring more door seals. Door seals are an expensive item that are prone to leakage over time from wear and tear. They really leak when located along the sides of the trailer, as opposed to the rear.

“CO2 is not a problem. It’s plant food. The greenest trees can be found next to the highway’s with the biggest traffic jams.”

Firstly, we can only react in a responsible way to the research available to us. If what we are being told is substantiated, CO2 may well be good for the chlorophyl filled life on the planet, but obviously not so good for the ever-increasing greenhouse effect. If our planet was being populated by plants to neutralise our CO2 emissions, fair enough. Regrettably, our CO2 absorbing friends are being decimated. It takes one large tree a lifetime to absorb just over 1 tonne of CO2. One artic under normal circumstances will produce 80 times that in a one year.

“… it will push the costs for distribution much higher than they are already without any sound scientific grounds.

Even with the high fuel prices, distribution costs hardly play a role in consumer prices.

The problem is with the independent truckers who drive the cargo based on fixed contracts. When fuel prices go up, they pay from their own pocket.”

I find these comments quite staggering and a little short-sighted. As many in the UK industry will know, fuel is responsible for circa 1/3 to 1/2 of all transportation costs. If any aerodynamic addition reduces fuel consumption by even 2%, the net profit effect is very welcoming. The point is that cost cannot outweigh benefit. If a set of tail-fins costs £800 GBP and attributable fuel savings are £1,500 per annum, the ‘cost of distribution’ surely decreases. Your viewpoint represents a regrettably common attitude that focussed more on initial capital cost rather than operational throughout the lifespan of the vehicle.

As for distribution costs not playing a role consumer prices, this is a very generic opinion that has little founding. It is true that independants on fixed contracts will not be able to pass on fuel increases, but these contracts are unviable. Many contracts in the UK are now linked with diesel prices.

Any distribution company that is likely to survive the next decade would have already considered the fuel price increases (http://www.donbur.co.uk/gb/fueltrends.shtml) and made reasonable allowances for the term of any contract. As a result, it is reasonable to assume that consumer prices are indeed being driven up prematurely.

Lastly, it is worth noting that overall distribution efficiency should be measured on a cost per stillage mile basis. On this basis, it is easy to determine that the most efficiency can be obtained in cubic capacity (The UK often utilise Double Deck 40′ trailers for trunking with 66% greater cube). Some comments here refer to the tapering of the rear to obtain a more aerodynamic profile, but eating into load space is counter-productive and leads to more deliveries and poorer overall fuel consumption.

In comparsion to a single deck trailer, at say 9mpg, a double deck may only achieve 7mpg, but the cost per stillage mile is far better; a fact recognised by many operators, hence the call for larger, longer vehicles.

What do we do to replace the adjustable tandems?

How do you get ther truck into a dock.

How much time and fuel does that take? Redeploying it?

Is that included in the length limits?

How many additional trucks does that require?

>>>This is killing a fly with a machine gun. Take a look
>>here: http://www.meridian-int-res.com/Aeronautics/Coanda.htm

I have seen a number of these already on European roads.

.

.

BTW. Have you noticed that all those top-boxes people put on the roofs of their cars, are the wrong way around? Seriously, the pointy bit should be at the back, for maximum aerodynamic efficiency, not the front.

Don’t believe me? Take a look at any airfraft wing. The leading edge (front) is quite blunt, but the trailing edge (back) is as sharp as possible. Why? Drag is caused by eddied at the rear of a body, rather than a blunt front – as this truck demonstrates.

.