I’m always for energy saving ideas when they payback the effort. Here’s one that would be an advantage for our long haul American Interstate trucking companies. This semi has both side wings and a boat tail to decrease wind drag.
It is pretty simple really:
‘Boat tail’ decreases fuel consumption for trucks by 7.5 percent
From a Delft Technical University press release
A boat tail, a tapering protrusion mounted on the rear of a truck, leads to fuel savings of 7.5 percent. This is due to dramatically-improved aerodynamics, as shown by road tests conducted by the PART (Platform for Aerodynamic Road Transport) public-private partnership platform.
Here are the other places wind resistance on a semi-truck can be addressed for fuel savings:
Public highways
A boat tail is a tapering protrusion about two metres in length mounted on the rear of a truck. The boat tail had already proved itself during wind tunnel experiments and computer simulations, both conducted at TU Delft, in theory and using small-scale models. Now an articulated lorry fitted with a boat tail has also undergone extensive testing on public highways.
Emissions
An articulated lorry was driven for a period of one year with a boat tail (of varying length) and one year without a boat tail. The improved aerodynamics, depending on the length of the boat tail, resulted in reduced fuel consumption (and emissions!) of up to 7.5 percent. The optimum boat tail length proved to be two metres.
PART
The tests were conducted by PART. This is a platform in which academics, road transport manufacturers, transport companies and shippers work together. The platform aims to reduce fuel consumption in the road transport industry by improving aerodynamics. PARTs ambition is to achieve a 20 percent reduction in fuel consumption and CO2 emissions in the road transport industry by 2020. TU Delft acts as secretary of PART. PART has previously conducted road tests on a new generation of aerodynamic sideskirts, which are to make their commercial debut later this year.
More information
More on PART: www.part20.eu
More about the side wings: www.ephicas.eu
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ron de Haan
“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.
Finally, as much as this boat-tail extends the overall length of the trailer past the trailer axles, turning sharply into a driveway from a main road will be a disaster for traffic in adjacent lanes. The swing of the boat-tail clearly, just by looking at the vehicle, would have to protrude into fast moving traffic creating a real hazard from both directions depending on the direction of the turn.
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.
Speaking of railways, intermodal and container traffic is going to love what that does to their ton-per-car numbers.
I’m not going to sieve through all the comments. A partial crawl finds no one who even comprehends 3-D geometry.
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.
Richard Owens (01:28:59) :
Al lot is done to make trucks aerodynamic efficient but costs and Government rules limit the possibilities.
As stated, container transport is the biggest share of the transport market and there is nobody who will put a single dime in creating an aerodynamic container for the next twenty years.
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.
OK now lets think out side of the box for a minute. Why couldn’t trailers be tapered to the back end when built . in most cases they are unloaded one pallet at a time so if you tapered the trailer to the back and put the back door at the back of the taper then all will be happy and more efficient. Existing trailer cold be modified as well behind the rear wheels so long as you do not go past the 5′ restriction.
Problem solved by an Australian.
OK, let’s.
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.
Trucks are not the danger on our highways, uninformed and ill-trained car drivers are.
The awfull truth is that everyday drivers have no idea of how different it is to drive a truck compared to a car. They assume the trucks act the same as cars, they don’t! They cannot stop on a dime or accelerate as fast as a car, but not many people seem to realize this.
It’s time car drivers were better informed or trained!
“The awfull truth is that everyday drivers have no idea of how different it is to drive a truck compared to a car.”
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.
Great post nice idea too, many will definitely like this
This product along with the Portable Nose Cone Assembly from Hall-N-Binz, Inc. on intermodal containers would greatly stream line a train. Has any testing been done on a train load of containers with this product? What an interesting concept.