8 ms·

This might be completely wrong, since my understanding is based very much off of Truck Simulator games, but isn’t one of the reasons aerodynamics as well? The U

This might be completely wrong, since my understanding is based very much off of Truck Simulator games, but isn’t one of the reasons aerodynamics as well? The US is huge, and trips can take several days at high speeds, so aerodynamic improvements can save quite a bit of money, whereas EU is smaller, the trucks do not go at large speeds for as long and have to navigate tiny city streets, thus being more compact is an advantage there.

Symbiote 1y ago
It's more that the EU regulations on the total length of the articulated lorry include the tractor, but American regulations limit the length of each part.
- Gare 1y ago
  True, but that EU regulation is based on the ground truth of much less spacious roads and cities.
  - gmueckl 1y ago
    Not quite. Originally, the tighter length limits were intended to give trucks a disadvantage compared to freight trains. But engine technology caught up and more efficient smaller engines negated that limitation.
  - crote 1y ago
    Not really. A regular truck & trailer is way too big to fit in space-constrained city centers. When it gets really tight they'll just send a box truck, often with a trailer they can leave behind outside the city center for some extra capacity when it's a multi-stop trip [0]. The fancy ones even have doors in the front of the trailer, making it quite easy to move freight from the trailer into the box truck itself. On the other hand, the highway infrastructure has plenty of space for large trucks. If the roads to & from the main highway network can handle it, some countries will give you permits for all sorts of fancy combinations[1] up to 83 ft long. Considering that it'll still be pulled with a regular cab-over truck, that's a lot of space for freight. They are now even trialing the "Super EcoCombi", which is essentially two full semi-trailers[2], for a total of 105 ft! [0]: https://assets-global.website-files.com/6424195493a93d7e7fe40175/6448d30957947a31caa97bdc_IMG_7488.jpg https://assets-global.website-files.com/6424195493a93d7e7fe4... [1]: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langere_en_Zwaardere_Vrachtautocombinatie#/media/Bestand:Alle_Varianten_LZV.jpg https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langere_en_Zwaardere_Vrachtaut... [2]: https://i0.wp.com/www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/sec.jpg?ssl=1 https://i0.wp.com/www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/uploads...
giantg2 1y ago
Makes me wonder if you couldn't have some sort of pop-out aero fender on the cab over trucks for use at higher speeds.
- PaulDavisThe1st 1y ago
  I am frankly amazed that US trucks, which already have an elongated "nose first" tractor shape, have not evolved to look more like high-speed train engines.
  - giantg2 1y ago
    Some have become more aerodynamic with the mirrors, over cab cowling, and wheel cowling. I wonder if some of the flat front had to do with airflow over the radiator.
    - AngryData 1y ago
      Good radiator space was definitely some of it, part of the requirement for the engines and transmissions to last the like million+ miles truckers want out of them is to have more than merely sufficient cooling in order to keep both the engine and transmission to stay the same temperature no matter how hot it is outside or how hard they need to run the engines to get up a hill. Of course that is along side other semi-truck specific equipment like bypass oil filters that have a MUCH finer filter to remove smaller metal particles that would otherwise just pass right through the main oil filter. More variable operating temperatures and worse oil filtration might be fine for consumer vehicles that are mostly rusted out trash out by time they hit 300,000 miles, but you wouldn't want to have to buy a brand new semi-truck engine every 3 years.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 1y ago
        are you suggesting that these goals are unmeetable if the front end has a particularly aerodynamic shape?
        1y ago
stevage 1y ago
Yes, that's what I was referring to by efficiency.
justsomehnguy 1y ago
> aerodynamic improvements can save quite a bit of money If there were any significant amount of a saved money then a 'brick style' tractors like Peterbilt 389 [0] would be long gone purely by economical factors. It's still a brick on wheels which pushes a multi-ton load. It's more a combination of a lack of a meaningful train system, an overall spareness of the cities and the roads and a male appendage measuring cont^W^W^W^W history and customs around the trucks[1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Peterbilt_Semi-Tractor.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Peterbilt_Semi-Tractor.jp... It was introduced in 2007. EDIT: [1] heh: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44479293 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44479293
- stevejb 1y ago
  > It's more a combination of a lack of a meaningful train system Doesn't the USA have the world's largest and most cost-effective rail freight network? This seems meaningful.
- sokoloff 1y ago
  > lack of a meaningful train system The US moves the most freight by rail in the world; seems meaningful… https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/highest-railway-cargo-traffic-in-the-world.html https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/highest-railway-cargo-tr...
  - WillAdams 1y ago
    The problem of course is that during WWII, every narrow gauge feeder line of less than 100 miles length in the U.S. was pulled up and shipped to Europe for the war effort --- after the war, there was little effort made to rebuild them (the big 3 focusing on the individually owned car and so forth) --- remember this the next time a European boasts about their wonderful rail system: https://armyhistory.org/railroaders-in-olive-drab-the-military-railway-service-in-wwii/ https://armyhistory.org/railroaders-in-olive-drab-the-milita...
    - lttlrck 1y ago
      Wow that link is a treasure. Thank you. I have read quite a bit about WWII from a European perspective but I never read anything that even touched on those aspects.
greenavocado 1y ago
Look into truck speed limits in the EU. They are absurdly low. It's common to see trucks in America going 75 mph for comparison. A typical governor is 80 mph. Most EU trucks are GOVERNED to 56 mph. American trucks are high performance racing machines by comparison.
- Xss3 1y ago
  They're low for emissions, safety, and efficiency purposes. Overall its a net benefit to all of society, including the truckers that cant be pressured to go faster to meet a target.
  - b112 1y ago
    It may be efficient in Europe, but when trucks drive long distances (are you sure you understand how far?), speed makes a huge difference. You'd literally need to build more roads, as long haul trucks would be on the road, literally, for an entire day longer per load. Speed is efficiency. A lot of driving is actually done at night. Fewer cars.
    - dewey 1y ago
      Shouldn't the trucks be more used for "last mile" operations from the cargo trains vs going very long distances and needing to go very fast? Seems like that would be the more appropriate solution.
      - jorts 1y ago
        I’d have to imagine the folks in this industry have done enough analysis to figure out what is most cost efficient.
        mbreese 1y ago
        I have no specialized knowledge in this, but I don’t think that cost efficiency is the primary reason for using trucks over trains. Because, if it was, rail with last mile by truck would probably win. Rail has a very low cost per mile by weight rate. But, it can be slow. Particularly when you consider that there are only a few routes across the country (across the Rockies), and trucks can go directly from point A to point B without needing to connect to a rail hub at both ends. In someways it seems similar to why the hub and spoke model has fallen out of favor for airlines. It might be more efficient to have one large flight between hubs and two small flights to regional airports, but passengers would rather have a direct flight.
CHUCKEESH 1y ago
[dead]

Symbiote 1y ago

It's more that the EU regulations on the total length of the articulated lorry include the tractor, but American regulations limit the length of each part.

Gare 1y ago
True, but that EU regulation is based on the ground truth of much less spacious roads and cities.
- gmueckl 1y ago
  Not quite. Originally, the tighter length limits were intended to give trucks a disadvantage compared to freight trains. But engine technology caught up and more efficient smaller engines negated that limitation.
- crote 1y ago
  Not really. A regular truck & trailer is way too big to fit in space-constrained city centers. When it gets really tight they'll just send a box truck, often with a trailer they can leave behind outside the city center for some extra capacity when it's a multi-stop trip [0]. The fancy ones even have doors in the front of the trailer, making it quite easy to move freight from the trailer into the box truck itself. On the other hand, the highway infrastructure has plenty of space for large trucks. If the roads to & from the main highway network can handle it, some countries will give you permits for all sorts of fancy combinations[1] up to 83 ft long. Considering that it'll still be pulled with a regular cab-over truck, that's a lot of space for freight. They are now even trialing the "Super EcoCombi", which is essentially two full semi-trailers[2], for a total of 105 ft! [0]: https://assets-global.website-files.com/6424195493a93d7e7fe40175/6448d30957947a31caa97bdc_IMG_7488.jpg https://assets-global.website-files.com/6424195493a93d7e7fe4... [1]: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langere_en_Zwaardere_Vrachtautocombinatie#/media/Bestand:Alle_Varianten_LZV.jpg https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langere_en_Zwaardere_Vrachtaut... [2]: https://i0.wp.com/www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/sec.jpg?ssl=1 https://i0.wp.com/www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/uploads...

giantg2 1y ago

Makes me wonder if you couldn't have some sort of pop-out aero fender on the cab over trucks for use at higher speeds.

PaulDavisThe1st 1y ago
I am frankly amazed that US trucks, which already have an elongated "nose first" tractor shape, have not evolved to look more like high-speed train engines.
- giantg2 1y ago
  Some have become more aerodynamic with the mirrors, over cab cowling, and wheel cowling. I wonder if some of the flat front had to do with airflow over the radiator.
  - AngryData 1y ago
    Good radiator space was definitely some of it, part of the requirement for the engines and transmissions to last the like million+ miles truckers want out of them is to have more than merely sufficient cooling in order to keep both the engine and transmission to stay the same temperature no matter how hot it is outside or how hard they need to run the engines to get up a hill. Of course that is along side other semi-truck specific equipment like bypass oil filters that have a MUCH finer filter to remove smaller metal particles that would otherwise just pass right through the main oil filter. More variable operating temperatures and worse oil filtration might be fine for consumer vehicles that are mostly rusted out trash out by time they hit 300,000 miles, but you wouldn't want to have to buy a brand new semi-truck engine every 3 years.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 1y ago
      are you suggesting that these goals are unmeetable if the front end has a particularly aerodynamic shape?
      - 1y ago

stevage 1y ago

Yes, that's what I was referring to by efficiency.

justsomehnguy 1y ago

> aerodynamic improvements can save quite a bit of money If there were any significant amount of a saved money then a 'brick style' tractors like Peterbilt 389 [0] would be long gone purely by economical factors. It's still a brick on wheels which pushes a multi-ton load. It's more a combination of a lack of a meaningful train system, an overall spareness of the cities and the roads and a male appendage measuring cont^W^W^W^W history and customs around the trucks[1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Peterbilt_Semi-Tractor.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Peterbilt_Semi-Tractor.jp... It was introduced in 2007. EDIT: [1] heh: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44479293 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44479293

stevejb 1y ago
> It's more a combination of a lack of a meaningful train system Doesn't the USA have the world's largest and most cost-effective rail freight network? This seems meaningful.
sokoloff 1y ago
> lack of a meaningful train system The US moves the most freight by rail in the world; seems meaningful… https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/highest-railway-cargo-traffic-in-the-world.html https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/highest-railway-cargo-tr...
- WillAdams 1y ago
  The problem of course is that during WWII, every narrow gauge feeder line of less than 100 miles length in the U.S. was pulled up and shipped to Europe for the war effort --- after the war, there was little effort made to rebuild them (the big 3 focusing on the individually owned car and so forth) --- remember this the next time a European boasts about their wonderful rail system: https://armyhistory.org/railroaders-in-olive-drab-the-military-railway-service-in-wwii/ https://armyhistory.org/railroaders-in-olive-drab-the-milita...
  - lttlrck 1y ago
    Wow that link is a treasure. Thank you. I have read quite a bit about WWII from a European perspective but I never read anything that even touched on those aspects.

greenavocado 1y ago

Look into truck speed limits in the EU. They are absurdly low. It's common to see trucks in America going 75 mph for comparison. A typical governor is 80 mph. Most EU trucks are GOVERNED to 56 mph. American trucks are high performance racing machines by comparison.

Xss3 1y ago
They're low for emissions, safety, and efficiency purposes. Overall its a net benefit to all of society, including the truckers that cant be pressured to go faster to meet a target.
- b112 1y ago
  It may be efficient in Europe, but when trucks drive long distances (are you sure you understand how far?), speed makes a huge difference. You'd literally need to build more roads, as long haul trucks would be on the road, literally, for an entire day longer per load. Speed is efficiency. A lot of driving is actually done at night. Fewer cars.
  - dewey 1y ago
    Shouldn't the trucks be more used for "last mile" operations from the cargo trains vs going very long distances and needing to go very fast? Seems like that would be the more appropriate solution.
    - jorts 1y ago
      I’d have to imagine the folks in this industry have done enough analysis to figure out what is most cost efficient.
      - mbreese 1y ago
        I have no specialized knowledge in this, but I don’t think that cost efficiency is the primary reason for using trucks over trains. Because, if it was, rail with last mile by truck would probably win. Rail has a very low cost per mile by weight rate. But, it can be slow. Particularly when you consider that there are only a few routes across the country (across the Rockies), and trucks can go directly from point A to point B without needing to connect to a rail hub at both ends. In someways it seems similar to why the hub and spoke model has fallen out of favor for airlines. It might be more efficient to have one large flight between hubs and two small flights to regional airports, but passengers would rather have a direct flight.

CHUCKEESH 1y ago

[dead]