3 ms·
I think the article could have done a better job of portraying the side of the industry. The majority cost is probably fuel efficiency. At the end of the articl
by klabb3 3y ago
I think the article could have done a better job of portraying the side of the industry. The majority cost is probably fuel efficiency. At the end of the article, they describe a new technical solution which is more light weight, involving a polyester mesh and steel, instead of just steel.
When you think about it, that’s an argument FOR requiring these regulations early, like back in the 70s when the issue was on the table. Because when you DO put safety first, engineering now has a bounded problem that they can improve on quickly (which engineers are particularly good at). So, stupid all-around, and tens of thousands of people died for no good reason.
- Drunk_Engineer 3y agoClosed sideguards actually improve fuel economy due to reduced air drag.
- klabb3 3y agoYeah but the article claims they just have a flap without any support, so no improved safety. Having actual sideguards adds weight independent of the aerodynamic issue.
- maratbn 3y agoMaybe 1,000 lbs of weight, so instead of 40,000 lbs cargo trailer would be limited to 39,000 lbs, but lots of people would not get decapitated. There is also no reason why states could not allow extra 1,000 lbs of total vehicle weight when trailer is equipped with side-guards.
- klabb3 3y agoAbsolutely! I pointed this out only to address the arguments from the industry side, as far as I understand them. I’ve seen many debates getting hijacked by “smart” contrarians who are accusing people of misrepresenting the issue.
- Drunk_Engineer 3y agoSide underride guards weigh as little as 150 lbs, and have been successfully tested at 40mph speeds.
- andbberger 3y agoredundant pitot tubes also reduce fuel efficiency.