Yahoo headline just posted- with rising diesel costs, truckers see the end of the road

[vsmith]

When I said ANWR was a red herring I ment that on the political front, not on the oil companies. It is being pitched by some our leaders to the public as a fix to the current problems, open it today and have lower prices tommorow, at least thats the way I read the spin. The fact that years of development would be necessary never enters that debate. Congress has been the roadblock, no one wants to stick their political neck on the block, not even some republicans, to approve opening it. But given the rocketing gas prices I wonder how much longer their going to hold out before public pressure for lower gas prices wins out over the desire to preserve wilderness areas, I give it a year, 2 tops before its opened, for good or for bad, but I see it as inevitable, even if it will take years to get to market.

Also I did not mean to say it would not be in the oil companies interest to develop ANWR, I ment it would be problematic given the logistics to get there, and get the oil out, but thats never stopped any of the larger companies from trying. Some of the smaller companies might opt out, but the large companies like Exxon would certainly have the resources, experience, and the will to go in.

I also agree that once opened prices would drop as you said, but only for the short term, as soon as everyone realized any oil from ANWR was years away from market, it would creep right back up to where it was before.

I think if we sat down face to face and discussed it, I think we would find more in agreement than in disagreement, its just the different way we view the subject. Anyway thats all I've got left to say on the subject.

Given we could discuss our personal veiwpoints on this topic till the end of time - or ANWR is opened to exploration whichever comes first, but I dont want this to become another Steam -vs- Diesel topic here and have the discussion become 20 pages of us repeating ourselves.

I think we've pretty much beaten the horse to death, and then turned the horsemeat into little horse meatballs, all that will soon be left is the horseraddish.

So for the sake of the forum discussion, you win.

Lets find something else to haggle over, I'd rather discuss the market for electric commuter skateboards  

[Anonymous]

The ANWR aurgument is a red herring, even if it was opened to drilling today it would be up to  10 years before any meaningful production could begin, and then, where are they going to refine it? Crude avalability is high worldwide, its refining capacity thats been the bottleneck binding supply, particularly here in the US. High demand for refined products worldwide, coupled with nervous speculators driving price per barrel up. Bush said recently that new refineries are required, with record windfall profits wheres the incentive for oil companies to sink millions into strangling the golden goose of profit? If Bush truely thinks new refineries are needed the only likely way he's likely to get one will be for the Guv'ment itself to build it bypassing the oil companies.

You suggest the government should bypass the oil companies and build the refineries that are needed.  Do you believe the oil companies are not building new refineries because they don't want to?  They want to drill in ANWR.  So I would think that if they needed new refineries for ANWR oil, they would want to build them.  Why would they want to drill for oil if they can't refine it?

I beleive the oil companies dont want to invest a penny more than they feel is absolutly necessary, no drill in ANWR means no necessary increase in proceesing the crude oil it would produce, hence no incentive to a build any new refinery. Seems to me they are perfectly happy with their current production levels, and their current profit level. Why invest in something that would in the end hurt your profit margin by increasing current supply and in doing so suppressing prices, thats just plain bad capitalism. I honestly think that even if ANWR was opened that the oil companies would simply process it thru the existing infrastructure, that way they still maximize their profit while accessing a source in a decidely less hostile part of the world, Elk dont drive carbombs, well, not yet anyways.

So if congress authorized drilling in ANWR to increase the supply of oil, do you believe there would be no takers because the oil companies do not want to increase the supply?

No there would definelty be takers, the question is who has the deep pockets to explore such a remote region? Some companies  have already stated getting the oil out of ANWR overland or by sea is problematic at best. But I'm not going to speculate on whether or not it will ever get opened, too big a hot potato politically, even with the sky high oil prices.

I guess I'm not sure what you are saying about oil companies and ANWR.  You said ANWR was a red herring because the oil companies either could not, or would not go after the oil.  Then you said they would go after it, but you asked from where would they get the capital to go after it, suggesting that they don't have sufficient capital to put ANWR into production. 

Everything that I have ever heard suggests that the only thing that prevents ANWR from going into production is the U.S. congress.  Also, from what I have heard, the alleged excess profits made by the oil companies is not a result of high crude prices on the world market, but rather, from the processing and marketing of that crude.  Rising crude prices dampen demand, so it is entirely possible that lower crude prices resulting from new supply sources would actually increase oil company profits, not lower them as you suggest.  So I am skeptical when you say the oil companies would not want to develop ANWR because it would not be in their financial interest.  I think that's the red herring you mentioned concerning ANWR. 

Also, as I previously mentioned, if congress approved ANWR development today, the world price would drop the instant the news is received.  This silly notion that ANWR is just a drop in the bucket, too little, and too far off in the future to matter is transparent propaganda put out by the same interests who want us to believe we are running out of oil, and we had better stop using it. 

[daveklepper]

Usual non-expert outside advice by someone who has not explored the problem in any kind of depth or experience.

[vsmith]

The ANWR aurgument is a red herring, even if it was opened to drilling today it would be up to  10 years before any meaningful production could begin, and then, where are they going to refine it? Crude avalability is high worldwide, its refining capacity thats been the bottleneck binding supply, particularly here in the US. High demand for refined products worldwide, coupled with nervous speculators driving price per barrel up. Bush said recently that new refineries are required, with record windfall profits wheres the incentive for oil companies to sink millions into strangling the golden goose of profit? If Bush truely thinks new refineries are needed the only likely way he's likely to get one will be for the Guv'ment itself to build it bypassing the oil companies.

You suggest the government should bypass the oil companies and build the refineries that are needed.  Do you believe the oil companies are not building new refineries because they don't want to?  They want to drill in ANWR.  So I would think that if they needed new refineries for ANWR oil, they would want to build them.  Why would they want to drill for oil if they can't refine it?

I beleive the oil companies dont want to invest a penny more than they feel is absolutly necessary, no drill in ANWR means no necessary increase in proceesing the crude oil it would produce, hence no incentive to a build any new refinery. Seems to me they are perfectly happy with their current production levels, and their current profit level. Why invest in something that would in the end hurt your profit margin by increasing current supply and in doing so suppressing prices, thats just plain bad capitalism. I honestly think that even if ANWR was opened that the oil companies would simply process it thru the existing infrastructure, that way they still maximize their profit while accessing a source in a decidely less hostile part of the world, Elk dont drive carbombs, well, not yet anyways.

So if congress authorized drilling in ANWR to increase the supply of oil, do you believe there would be no takers because the oil companies do not want to increase the supply?

No there would definelty be takers, the question is who has the deep pockets to explore such a remote region? Some companies  have already stated getting the oil out of ANWR overland or by sea is problematic at best. But I'm not going to speculate on whether or not it will ever get opened, too big a hot potato politically, even with the sky high oil prices.

[Anonymous]

The ANWR aurgument is a red herring, even if it was opened to drilling today it would be up to  10 years before any meaningful production could begin, and then, where are they going to refine it? Crude avalability is high worldwide, its refining capacity thats been the bottleneck binding supply, particularly here in the US. High demand for refined products worldwide, coupled with nervous speculators driving price per barrel up. Bush said recently that new refineries are required, with record windfall profits wheres the incentive for oil companies to sink millions into strangling the golden goose of profit? If Bush truely thinks new refineries are needed the only likely way he's likely to get one will be for the Guv'ment itself to build it bypassing the oil companies.

You suggest the government should bypass the oil companies and build the refineries that are needed.  Do you believe the oil companies are not building new refineries because they don't want to?  They want to drill in ANWR.  So I would think that if they needed new refineries for ANWR oil, they would want to build them.  Why would they want to drill for oil if they can't refine it?

I beleive the oil companies dont want to invest a penny more than they feel is absolutly necessary, no drill in ANWR means no necessary increase in proceesing the crude oil it would produce, hence no incentive to a build any new refinery. Seems to me they are perfectly happy with their current production levels, and their current profit level. Why invest in something that would in the end hurt your profit margin by increasing current supply and in doing so suppressing prices, thats just plain bad capitalism. I honestly think that even if ANWR was opened that the oil companies would simply process it thru the existing infrastructure, that way they still maximize their profit while accessing a source in a decidely less hostile part of the world, Elk dont drive carbombs, well, not yet anyways.

So if congress authorized drilling in ANWR to increase the supply of oil, do you believe there would be no takers because the oil companies do not want to increase the supply?

[vsmith]

The ANWR aurgument is a red herring, even if it was opened to drilling today it would be up to  10 years before any meaningful production could begin, and then, where are they going to refine it? Crude avalability is high worldwide, its refining capacity thats been the bottleneck binding supply, particularly here in the US. High demand for refined products worldwide, coupled with nervous speculators driving price per barrel up. Bush said recently that new refineries are required, with record windfall profits wheres the incentive for oil companies to sink millions into strangling the golden goose of profit? If Bush truely thinks new refineries are needed the only likely way he's likely to get one will be for the Guv'ment itself to build it bypassing the oil companies.

You suggest the government should bypass the oil companies and build the refineries that are needed.  Do you believe the oil companies are not building new refineries because they don't want to?  They want to drill in ANWR.  So I would think that if they needed new refineries for ANWR oil, they would want to build them.  Why would they want to drill for oil if they can't refine it?

I beleive the oil companies dont want to invest a penny more than they feel is absolutly necessary, no drill in ANWR means no necessary increase in proceesing the crude oil it would produce, hence no incentive to a build any new refinery. Seems to me they are perfectly happy with their current production levels, and their current profit level. Why invest in something that would in the end hurt your profit margin by increasing current supply and in doing so suppressing prices, thats just plain bad capitalism. I honestly think that even if ANWR was opened that the oil companies would simply process it thru the existing infrastructure, that way they still maximize their profit while accessing a source in a decidely less hostile part of the world, Elk dont drive carbombs, well, not yet anyways.

[Anonymous]

The ANWR aurgument is a red herring, even if it was opened to drilling today it would be up to  10 years before any meaningful production could begin, and then, where are they going to refine it? Crude avalability is high worldwide, its refining capacity thats been the bottleneck binding supply, particularly here in the US. High demand for refined products worldwide, coupled with nervous speculators driving price per barrel up. Bush said recently that new refineries are required, with record windfall profits wheres the incentive for oil companies to sink millions into strangling the golden goose of profit? If Bush truely thinks new refineries are needed the only likely way he's likely to get one will be for the Guv'ment itself to build it bypassing the oil companies.

You suggest the government should bypass the oil companies and build the refineries that are needed.  Do you believe the oil companies are not building new refineries because they don't want to?  They want to drill in ANWR.  So I would think that if they needed new refineries for ANWR oil, they would want to build them.  Why would they want to drill for oil if they can't refine it?

[vsmith]

The ANWR aurgument is a red herring, even if it was opened to drilling today it would be up to  10 years before any meaningful production could begin, and then, where are they going to refine it? Crude avalability is high worldwide, its refining capacity thats been the bottleneck binding supply, particularly here in the US. High demand for refined products worldwide, coupled with nervous speculators driving price per barrel up. Bush said recently that new refineries are required, with record windfall profits wheres the incentive for oil companies to sink millions into strangling the golden goose of profit? If Bush truely thinks new refineries are needed the only likely way he's likely to get one will be for the Guv'ment itself to build it bypassing the oil companies. Likely to happen? yeah right, face it, we're in for it for the next few years anyway you slice it.

May soon come to be when its time to turn that Hummer into a chicken coop and resurrect plans for those 60's bubblecars...what else could we make...

Enclosed Motor Scooters?

Electric skateboards?

The way I see it, we're all going to be paying alot more for basics, those diesel fuel costs (truck and rail) will get passed onto all of us.

[Anonymous]

I saw they want to raise it a $1.00 a gallon smog tax. I watch alot of C-SPAN waiting to get called to work.

World Oil Production has peaked, plan on the worst. One plan is to raise the price even more to get people to use less and plan better when they use there cars. Theres not a single thing we do as americans that doesnt tie into oil. GET READY

You are right, raising gas prices to get people to conserve has been a preferred approach by many.  They tend to lecture us on how good we have it compared to Europe.  However, most of the people who prefer this rationing-by-high-cost approach want the price to be high because of added taxes.  They don't want high prices if it is going to oil producer income.

Personally, I do not believe oil has peaked.  There are agenda driven reasons that people declare that oil has peaked.  One of those reasons is to promote public sector funding in the name of searching for alternative fuels.  The people who don't like oil would like to convince us we are running out of it.

I must say that I don't quite understand why you have no problem seing a couple of bucks per gallon of your gas purchases going to places like Dubai where UAE builds such modern conveniences as indoor facilities for snow skiing, high rise buildings for multi-million dollar apartments, or man made islands for single family housing starting in the seven figures and golf courses with green fees that are out of the reach of most of the members of this forum.

Then on the other hand, you constantly complain about any of your money for gasoline going for a tax that pays for the US highway system that is vital to our national economy and our personal well being. 

May I assume that you have no problem with your money going into the coffers of countries with governments that don't like us very much?

I don't have a problem with you having decided to go with the experts who argue that oil production hasn't peaked.  But one thing has to be abundantly clear and that is oil production is not increasing as fast as worldwide demand for petroleum products.  No doubt the higher prices for crude is going to promote some increase in production, but even if environmentalists lose their effort to block exploitation of oil deposits in sensitive areas, it is not likely that production will catch up with demand anytime soon.  Until it does, 4 dollars a gallon of gas might become something of a fond memory of the past rather than a grim portend of the future.

By the way, I should note that higher gas prices for any reason don't put me in any special financial bind.  The office for my business is within an easy walk of my house, I have the time to travel by train, or I can drive a fairily short distance to an airport if I am in a rush, and I can also spend enough less on discretionary items to offset increased prices due to higher freight costs.

Unfortunately, most Americans aren't in my position.

 

I have no problem with spending tax money on roads.  In fact, I wish it would increase.  However, a lot of the gas tax gets spent on things other than roads, while road construction and maintenance falls behind.

Spending the gas tax on roads is one thing, but ladling on excess gas tax to raise the price in order to discourage use is quite another thing, especially if the excess tax is spent frivolously on things other than roads.  It is the recipients of that inflated tax who are the most motivated to falsely tell us we are running out of oil because the concept of resource depletion is their pretext for rationing it by price.  This is about the best illustration I can think to be suspicious of proclamations about the peak oil milestone being at hand.

My objections to the government overtaxing road fuel and driving up the price by over regulating big oil does not mean that I am in favor of being gouged by oil producing countries or enriching countries who are unfriendly to us.  I object to both problems.  I also object to the slanted way TV media news largely ignores those two sources of the problem, and instead, constantly blames big oil and their profit.   

I agree with your assessment that it is abundantly clear that oil production is not increasing as it pertains to U.S. oil production.  In some areas of the world, it is increasing.  I believe there is plenty of oil out there to get, even in the U.S., but it is regulated out of reach by the very ones who would like to tax it, ration it, and tell us we don't have much.  It is pretty obvious where the problem lies and how to solve it.

Probably the focal point of lagging U.S. production is the debate of whether to drill in ANWR.  The people who want to stabilize the price of fuel tell us that ANWR production would be a substantial help.  The people who tell us fuel should be rationed by high taxes tell us that the addition of ANWR production would hardly be measurable, and that it would destroy pristine wilderness.  I can see why they say that, and the reason why they say that is the reason that I don't believe them.  World oil prices would begin to drop today if the U.S. congress approved drilling in ANWR today, even if the first drop of oil were not recovered for another five years.  Just our intentions alone affect the world oil market.

[jeaton]

I saw they want to raise it a $1.00 a gallon smog tax. I watch alot of C-SPAN waiting to get called to work.

World Oil Production has peaked, plan on the worst. One plan is to raise the price even more to get people to use less and plan better when they use there cars. Theres not a single thing we do as americans that doesnt tie into oil. GET READY

You are right, raising gas prices to get people to conserve has been a preferred approach by many.  They tend to lecture us on how good we have it compared to Europe.  However, most of the people who prefer this rationing-by-high-cost approach want the price to be high because of added taxes.  They don't want high prices if it is going to oil producer income.

Personally, I do not believe oil has peaked.  There are agenda driven reasons that people declare that oil has peaked.  One of those reasons is to promote public sector funding in the name of searching for alternative fuels.  The people who don't like oil would like to convince us we are running out of it.

I must say that I don't quite understand why you have no problem seing a couple of bucks per gallon of your gas purchases going to places like Dubai where UAE builds such modern conveniences as indoor facilities for snow skiing, high rise buildings for multi-million dollar apartments, or man made islands for single family housing starting in the seven figures and golf courses with green fees that are out of the reach of most of the members of this forum.

Then on the other hand, you constantly complain about any of your money for gasoline going for a tax that pays for the US highway system that is vital to our national economy and our personal well being. 

May I assume that you have no problem with your money going into the coffers of countries with governments that don't like us very much?

I don't have a problem with you having decided to go with the experts who argue that oil production hasn't peaked.  But one thing has to be abundantly clear and that is oil production is not increasing as fast as worldwide demand for petroleum products.  No doubt the higher prices for crude is going to promote some increase in production, but even if environmentalists lose their effort to block exploitation of oil deposits in sensitive areas, it is not likely that production will catch up with demand anytime soon.  Until it does, 4 dollars a gallon of gas might become something of a fond memory of the past rather than a grim portend of the future.

By the way, I should note that higher gas prices for any reason don't put me in any special financial bind.  The office for my business is within an easy walk of my house, I have the time to travel by train, or I can drive a fairily short distance to an airport if I am in a rush, and I can also spend enough less on discretionary items to offset increased prices due to higher freight costs.

Unfortunately, most Americans aren't in my position.

 

[Anonymous]

I saw they want to raise it a $1.00 a gallon smog tax. I watch alot of C-SPAN waiting to get called to work.

World Oil Production has peaked, plan on the worst. One plan is to raise the price even more to get people to use less and plan better when they use there cars. Theres not a single thing we do as americans that doesnt tie into oil. GET READY

You are right, raising gas prices to get people to conserve has been a preferred approach by many.  They tend to lecture us on how good we have it compared to Europe.  However, most of the people who prefer this rationing-by-high-cost approach want the price to be high because of added taxes.  They don't want high prices if it is going to oil producer income.

Personally, I do not believe oil has peaked.  There are agenda driven reasons that people declare that oil has peaked.  One of those reasons is to promote public sector funding in the name of searching for alternative fuels.  The people who don't like oil would like to convince us we are running out of it.

[UPRR engineer]

The Goverment, Railroads, Truckers are all freaking out, should you? Yes. Its only gonna get worse, i think its gonna get ugly. We are too far in (for everyone) to pull out. I keep telling myself the UP was still running during the great depression, time will tell. Something else i heard on C-SPAN today, oil is at about $120 a barrel, they said one year from now it could easily be up over $200.

[UPRR engineer]

I saw they want to raise it a $1.00 a gallon smog tax. I watch alot of C-SPAN waiting to get called to work.

World Oil Production has peaked, plan on the worst. One plan is to raise the price even more to get people to use less and plan better when they use there cars. Theres not a single thing we do as americans that doesnt tie into oil. GET READY

[Anonymous]

There are calls for the government to provide a "tax holiday" by suspending the gas tax for the summer.  Some say it won't be enough of a break to matter.  Others say it will end the supply of revenue needed to maintain and build roads.  And still others agree with the provision of a "tax holiday," but they want the oil companies to pay for it.  How is that for a brainteaser?  It seems to me that if the oil companies pay for it, it is not a tax holiday.  It's an oil profit holiday. 

What if the oil companies raise gas prices to pay for the tax holiday that they had to pay for?  What kind of a holiday would that be? 

[selector]

This is slipping a bit off topic, my contribution here , but to follow up on Michael's statement just now, there is a well-documented phenomenon called the Flynn Effect (you can google if you are interested) after a psychologist who noticed that each successive generation is slightly more intelligent than the ones preceding it based on standardized test scores, and correcting for confounds due to environmental and social influences.  Still, I am continually appalled at the sometimes baffling naiveté of my own adult children.  It's like they live in a cartoon world where real dangers don't exist.

Back to the point, I am following this topic with interest...still.  It doesn't seem to want to do the floppy chicken just yet.   I guess it is becoming more acutely relevant in view of developments.  Gas here on Vancouver Island is relatively cheap...for a change... compared to other places across the country.  They're up to CDN$1.30/l in Montreal last I heard, and we're still sittin' pretty (for once) at $1.27 locally, and Safeway gives us 7 cents a liter discount if we buy more than $35 in groceries. Mmm, mm, mmm.

-Crandell

P.S. - and we drive a Corolla.

[MichaelSol]

  

Is anyone considering that we might have to move to lowering vehicle loads or smaller truck sizes to increase milage? Anyone considered studying how to reduce aerodynamic drag on tractors AND trailers to increase milage? Has there been any serious look or testing into using biodiesel in semi-tractors. If there was I havent heard of it, so thats why I'm asking these questions.

Okay, no offense intended, this statement really shows that you have little to no understanding of the heavy trucking industry. REDUCING LOAD AND/OR TRUCK SIZES will increase the fuel required to move any particular amount of freight that you have.

A generation or two ago, most people would have been aware that volume increases faster than surface area, and that surface area is directly proportional to air resistance. And that, accordingly, the larger the cube, the greater the volume carried relative to air resistance. Therefore, that fuel efficiency per unit volume increases with increasing surface area.

It has little to do with heavy trucking in particular, this is something that eighth graders used to learn as basic physics. It's basic knowledge.

I increasingly perceive a generational difference -- based on education, not intelligence -- on these forums that relates to what used to be common knowledge and understanding of the world.

 

[vsmith]

No offense taken, this is why I'm asking questions, to get a better understanding.

[challenger3980]

vsmith,

  If you  don't think that there has been any change in the design and construction since the 30's, I respectfully suggest that you get your eyeglasses checked.I have been a truck driver for 20 years now come  August, and I have seen  dramatic changes just in those 20 years.

  Aerodynamicly there have been many improvements, and they continue. Look at the KW T2000/Peterbilt387 as an example compared to the cab-over that BJ McKay drove in BJ & the Bear. Cab-overs are a rarity these days, and when they are still used it is  for a reason, usually to reduce the overall vehicle length, but there is a reason besides fashion when they are used.

  Weight reduction is an old battle in the trucking industry, predating fuel conservation as a reason, the less a truck weighs, the more it can haul, the more it hauls the more money it makes.

   Turbos do help save fuel, yes they do boost horsepower, but believe it or not, LITTLE MOTORS DO NOT SAVE FUEL!!!!!  I know this from experience, it is important to MATCH the motor to the work being done. Ridiculously over sized motors will cost fuel economy, but so will an inadequate motor.

   I suggest that you do some research beyond looking at a picture of a truck your relative drove in the 30's, because you are entirely out of touch with reality in the world of heavy trucking.

                                                  Doug

I correct this by saying little motors save fuel, but not a lot of it.  I drive for a company that runs basically east of I35, and our loads are right up near gross weight limit.  My '06 Kenworth T2000 is getting about 6MPG with the C15 Cat, but I have driven an '05 that got 7-7.5.  We also have a bunch of '07 T600s with the C13, most of them get about 7MPG.

Right now, the newest Detroit Series 60s in new Freightliner Cascadias are besting the Cats, one driver getting 8mpg, another saying he went from MA to WI on one tank of fuel, loaded to gross.

A smaller motor might get better fuel economy on the flat, but will drink fuel like its going out of style when it gets into the hills of West Virginia.  With shippers trying to put as much weight as possible into our trailers without going over gross or over axle, weights will stay the same (I can haul 46,600 with my current truck and be right at gross, but we have hauled up to 50,000 across DFW, to the chagrin of DOT), a lighter truck means more beer can be piled in the box. 

Randy,

  I disagree with you about small motors saving fuel, I am not familiar with the area that You drive, maybe it is relatively flat, and a smaller motor would save fuel in that case. What you are calling a smaller motor would be a mid-sized motor to me. Here on the West Coast driving in Mountainous terrain, smaller motors do not save fuel.

  I started driving tractor trailer in 1988, did a regular route from Portland, OR through the Siskiyous, and to the North Cal Coast, Sacramento and back I-5 to PDX. When I started we had 315 Cummins and 9 speed trannys. Normally loaded to 72-78,000 Gross. Just going to the 350 Cummins made a difference and the series 60 and C-15's set at 435 were a very noticeable improvement.

  The company that I drive for now runs pretty light about 50-53,000 gross on my Boise, ID run, lots of hills. My last truck was 2000 Pete 385, 435HP C-12, 10 speed tranny 246" WB, 48" sleeper, Long Range fuel tanks (300 gals total). My current tractor is a 2006 Pete 385 with a 335 ISM Cummins, same 10 speed tranny, same rears, tires loads and routes. the old truck was probably 1000# heavier (if not more with every thing I had packed into it) The new truck is a 175"wb day-cab. The old truck with a larger motor and heavier all around averaged 6-6.2 MPG, the new lighter, smaller, underpowered truck avgs 5.7-5.8 MPG, same routes and loads, quite a bit of city delivery driving when I get there.

  In MY EXPERIENCE, smaller motors don't save fuel if you are driving in Mountainous terrain, maybe so in the flat lands, but not where I run.

                                                                        Doug

[challenger3980]

vsmith wrote:

   

Is anyone considering that we might have to move to lowering vehicle loads or smaller truck sizes to increase milage? Anyone considered studying how to reduce aerodynamic drag on tractors AND trailers to increase milage? Has there been any serious look or testing into using biodiesel in semi-tractors. If there was I havent heard of it, so thats why I'm asking these questions.

 

  Okay, no offense intended, this statement really shows that you have little to no understanding of the heavy trucking industry. REDUCING LOAD AND/OR TRUCK SIZES will increase the fuel required to move any particular amount of freight that you have. You may increase the milage of a smaller vehicle compared to that of a larger vehicle, that is EASY, but you still have XXX amount of freight to move, regardless of how many vehicles you use to move it. Using more smaller vehicles will just lower the ton-miles moved per gallon of fuel burned. More smaller vehicles to do the same job WILL INCREASE Fuel Consumption, Exhaust Pollution, Traffic Congestion, and Commodity prices, because now you will need MORE vehicles and Drivers to move the same volume of freight.

  Among the most fuel efficient combinations in use for LTL is the triple trailer combination. You have already paid for the frontal resistance, that third trailer is to borrow an expression from LTL(Less than Trailer Load) drivers that I have known "PURE PROFIT" It adds little to the fuel consumption, 2 sets of triples is MUCH more efficient than 3 sets of doubles, and one less driver to pay.

  Also, I don't understand what You think can be done to get away from the "Brick Shape" of the trailers, Dry vans, Reefers, Chip Trailers and other "Boxy" trailers are that way for a reason, to efficiently fill the trailer to capacity, and for the necessary loading and unloading that must be done. How do You propose to improve this boxy shape, especially to the rear portion of the trailer, and still have a functioning vehicle?

                                                                   Doug

[greyhounds]

And each time one of the Bay area refineries shuts down for maintenance the price of Gasoline rises in Central and Northern California. Part of the problem is not enough refineries and part is greed on their part. One shuts down and the others all raise their prices until that one comes back in service.

As a former President used to say: "I feel your pain."  I just made a round trip to St. Paul and gas for my Explorer was $110.   It does hurt.

But I also feel you are mistaken.  You attribute the price increase when a refinery shuts down to one of the seven deadly sins, greed.  No, it's just supply and demand.  The supply of gas decreases.  That means the price of gas will go up.  Just as sure as water runs downhill,  when the supply of gas decreases, the price will go up.  You say that when the refinery comes back on line the price goes back down - which is the other side of the coin.  When the supply increases the price goes down.  It's not greed, it's supply and demand.

The law of gravity that makes water run downhill is niether good nor bad, it just is;  likewise, the law of supply and demand with its inevitible effect on price is niether good nor bad, it just is.

Congress can't pass another "law" to change either one of them.  And attributing inevitible natural behavior of forces beyond mankind's control to sinful greed is looking for bad guys where none exist.

 

[vsmith]

I am not a trucker

Sorry if I read that into the discussion, thanks for the article.

[chicagorails]

the best way i save gas driving my truck is SLOWING DOWN and no more jack rabbit starts. see a red light ahead slow down before hand and usually wont have to stop. keep air pres. in tires tight. even a wax job on truck can cut wind friction. all adds up,pup.

all the high gas prices are adding to ROAD RAGE i thinks.

GOD HELP US 

[Anonymous]

Bucyrus, please reread my statement, I never anywhere said fuel economy had not changed, I said the basic design of the truck has not changed since the 1930's, and this is true,...

I did go back and read what you said in your original post, and you said the following, among other things:

"...some car manufacturers read the writing and began producing hybrids and other higher fuel efficiency models, now I have to ask:

Why haven't truck manufacturers done the same? Seams like there still making the the same metal bricks Smokey chased the Bandit around in 30 years ago?

So is it that the truck manufacturers are just collectivley too thick to get it? I havent seen any significant advance in diesel trucks since the widespread adoption of turbochargers, even those mostly boost HP not necessarily economy, the basic design and construction of the semi-tractor hasnt really changed since the 1930's

...you'd of thought someone, somewhere would be thinking, "Hey maybe we should begin research into designing more fuel efficient trucks"? Guess not. Too hard to think outside the metal box?

Maybe its time for more aerodynamic trucks, better engines, and smaller local delivery trucks, Biodiesel? Hybrid truck engines? time to start thinking outside the same old same old....someone enlightne me?"

 

Considering what you said, it does not seem to me that I mischaracterized your statements when I replied to your post by saying: "Moreover, I speculate that it is highly inaccurate to say that truck fuel efficiency design has not changed since 1930."  Your whole point concerning design seems to be about fuel efficiency.

In the above post where you say you are talking about basic design, not fuel efficiency, you show examples to prove your point, and mention that trucks still are shaped like bricks.  But it seems to me that in the terms of design that you say is not changing, you could say the same for diesel locomotives, or steam for that matter.  If the engine of trucks has been in front for the last 60 years, maybe that's the best place for it.  Why change it?  And then you continue your theme of trucks failing to evolve in design by again connecting it to how it affects fuel economy as you mention the difficulty of reducing the wind resistance on a brick.

I am not sure what you mean when you said this:

"Of course their have been improvements in almost every single aspect of the internals since the 1930s, fuel injection, electronic, turbo-charging, I'm well aware of that. My contention is that while automobiles have changed significantly, even diesel locomotive technology has changed radically since the 1960's we haven't seen similar rate of progress in the semi truck universe."

If trucks have been internally improved in every single aspect, what lack of progress are you referring to?

Not trying to pick a fight with ya, just to be clear 

While there have been component improvements, there just that, improvements, the basics remain fundimentaly the same. The basic underlaying fundementals have remained unchanged for decades. It would be as if every sedan rolling out of Detroit still had ladder frames and bias ply tires. Agreed, the basic layout IS a logical one, and has worked for for the last 60 years and will likely continue for the next 60 years, however, the semi-truck tractor AS IS in its current fuel hungry condition, is doomed if the manufacturers cannot find some way to radically increase fuel efficiency. Thats why I asked about alternative technologies like Hybrids. Even just a shift from say 6mpg to 9mpg would be a improvement.

I just havent seen any such major evolution or even the beginnings of any move to improving the species as has occured in the auto industry. The aurgument is that the truck is what it is, and it will get continue to be what it is regardless of how the universe changes. Its the universe that must change, not the truck. We'll heres a universe changing thought, diesel costs an arm and a leg, and will for all intents and purposes continue to cost an arm and a leg, just as there no Blue Fairy to grant Pinnochios wish to become a little boy, and theres no Blue Fairy going to lower diesel prices back to $2.50 a gallon, not with demand where it is these days. The industry is going to have to deal with this new reality one way or the other.

Is anyone considering that we might have to move to lowering vehicle loads or smaller truck sizes to increase milage? Anyone considered studying how to reduce aerodynamic drag on tractors AND trailers to increase milage? Has there been any serious look or testing into using biodiesel in semi-tractors. If there was I havent heard of it, so thats why I'm asking these questions.

Its 2008 but the industry is still living in 1968, no, it more like 1973, and the Arabs have just begun the embargo and everyone is starting to freak, only this time its the marketplace thats creating a defacto embargo, and you cant talk or bomb the marketplace into submission. Maybe the Guv'ment can lower prices, but only a little.

Your the trucker, to me that makes you the expert here, you tell me where you think the improvements could be made, and how are things going to look like when diesel hits and stays at $8-9 a gallon? Thats probably only a decade away, if not sooner.

I am not a trucker, and I don't exactly know what they could do to increase fuel efficiency.  Maybe there are potential gains still to be had by reducing weight by the use of more expensive materials.  It is possible that such measures have not been considered worth the investment when fuel was priced lower, but might become worth it as the fuel price rises.  That is the one silver lining to the dark cloud of rising energy prices; it intensifies research into alternatives because it raises the reward for finding alternatives.

I agree that the price is likely to continue upward to undreamed of heights.  Nevertheless, trucking and other commercial transportation will have to continue on.  Then end user is just going to have to pay for the increase, although they do have the option to cut down on the consumption of a wide variety of things. 

Here is a link to an article about using biodiesel in the trucking industry.  It says that biodiesel costs more than diesel, but it is "greener."  Therefore if a company feels a commitment to meet a green quotient, biodiesel can help them.  It is possible that if you use trucks in support of a retail business, for instance, you could attract more business from your customers if they feel good about your green effort, even though you need to charge them more because of it.   

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/19/BU63UHSMM.DTL

[vsmith]

....vssmith:

Enjoyed seeing your presented '39 and '40 truck model advertisements....Saw many as such travel thru at our location, rt. 30 in western Pennsylvania back then....

And wow....some of the drivers back then were really road jockies...!  Kick it out of gear and blast down thru the valley to get a start on the next hill....But they sure did drag up the hill in lower gear to even get up that hill.

I cant remember which novel it is, Stienbech's Grapes of Wrath I beleive, that describes bored truck drivers crossing the California deserts at night, would see turtles crossing the road in their headlight ahead and would carefully line up their truck so the front tire would brush the turtle, and shoot it across the desert like a tiddley-wink.

Yeah I know uber-un-PC today to talk about such things thats for sure, but it was a very different time and era. Kinda surprised I've never seen it depicted in a modern movie about that era

[vsmith]

Bucyrus, please reread my statement, I never anywhere said fuel economy had not changed, I said the basic design of the truck has not changed since the 1930's, and this is true,...

I did go back and read what you said in your original post, and you said the following, among other things:

"...some car manufacturers read the writing and began producing hybrids and other higher fuel efficiency models, now I have to ask:

Why haven't truck manufacturers done the same? Seams like there still making the the same metal bricks Smokey chased the Bandit around in 30 years ago?

So is it that the truck manufacturers are just collectivley too thick to get it? I havent seen any significant advance in diesel trucks since the widespread adoption of turbochargers, even those mostly boost HP not necessarily economy, the basic design and construction of the semi-tractor hasnt really changed since the 1930's

...you'd of thought someone, somewhere would be thinking, "Hey maybe we should begin research into designing more fuel efficient trucks"? Guess not. Too hard to think outside the metal box?

Maybe its time for more aerodynamic trucks, better engines, and smaller local delivery trucks, Biodiesel? Hybrid truck engines? time to start thinking outside the same old same old....someone enlightne me?"

 

Considering what you said, it does not seem to me that I mischaracterized your statements when I replied to your post by saying: "Moreover, I speculate that it is highly inaccurate to say that truck fuel efficiency design has not changed since 1930."  Your whole point concerning design seems to be about fuel efficiency.

In the above post where you say you are talking about basic design, not fuel efficiency, you show examples to prove your point, and mention that trucks still are shaped like bricks.  But it seems to me that in the terms of design that you say is not changing, you could say the same for diesel locomotives, or steam for that matter.  If the engine of trucks has been in front for the last 60 years, maybe that's the best place for it.  Why change it?  And then you continue your theme of trucks failing to evolve in design by again connecting it to how it affects fuel economy as you mention the difficulty of reducing the wind resistance on a brick.

I am not sure what you mean when you said this:

"Of course their have been improvements in almost every single aspect of the internals since the 1930s, fuel injection, electronic, turbo-charging, I'm well aware of that. My contention is that while automobiles have changed significantly, even diesel locomotive technology has changed radically since the 1960's we haven't seen similar rate of progress in the semi truck universe."

If trucks have been internally improved in every single aspect, what lack of progress are you referring to?

Not trying to pick a fight with ya, just to be clear 

While there have been component improvements, there just that, improvements, the basics remain fundimentaly the same. The basic underlaying fundementals have remained unchanged for decades. It would be as if every sedan rolling out of Detroit still had ladder frames and bias ply tires. Agreed, the basic layout IS a logical one, and has worked for for the last 60 years and will likely continue for the next 60 years, however, the semi-truck tractor AS IS in its current fuel hungry condition, is doomed if the manufacturers cannot find some way to radically increase fuel efficiency. Thats why I asked about alternative technologies like Hybrids. Even just a shift from say 6mpg to 9mpg would be a improvement.

I just havent seen any such major evolution or even the beginnings of any move to improving the species as has occured in the auto industry. The aurgument is that the truck is what it is, and it will get continue to be what it is regardless of how the universe changes. Its the universe that must change, not the truck. We'll heres a universe changing thought, diesel costs an arm and a leg, and will for all intents and purposes continue to cost an arm and a leg, just as there no Blue Fairy to grant Pinnochios wish to become a little boy, and theres no Blue Fairy going to lower diesel prices back to $2.50 a gallon, not with demand where it is these days. The industry is going to have to deal with this new reality one way or the other.

Is anyone considering that we might have to move to lowering vehicle loads or smaller truck sizes to increase milage? Anyone considered studying how to reduce aerodynamic drag on tractors AND trailers to increase milage? Has there been any serious look or testing into using biodiesel in semi-tractors. If there was I havent heard of it, so thats why I'm asking these questions.

Its 2008 but the industry is still living in 1968, no, it more like 1973, and the Arabs have just begun the embargo and everyone is starting to freak, only this time its the marketplace thats creating a defacto embargo, and you cant talk or bomb the marketplace into submission. Maybe the Guv'ment can lower prices, but only a little.

Your the trucker, to me that makes you the expert here, you tell me where you think the improvements could be made, and how are things going to look like when diesel hits and stays at $8-9 a gallon? Thats probably only a decade away, if not sooner.

[Modelcar]

....vssmith:

Enjoyed seeing your presented '39 and '40 truck model advertisements....Saw many as such travel thru at our location, rt. 30 in western Pennsylvania back then....

And wow....some of the drivers back then were really road jockies...!  Kick it out of gear and blast down thru the valley to get a start on the next hill....But they sure did drag up the hill in lower gear to even get up that hill.

[Anonymous]

Bucyrus, please reread my statement, I never anywhere said fuel economy had not changed, I said the basic design of the truck has not changed since the 1930's, and this is true,...

I did go back and read what you said in your original post, and you said the following, among other things:

"...some car manufacturers read the writing and began producing hybrids and other higher fuel efficiency models, now I have to ask:

Why haven't truck manufacturers done the same? Seams like there still making the the same metal bricks Smokey chased the Bandit around in 30 years ago?

So is it that the truck manufacturers are just collectivley too thick to get it? I havent seen any significant advance in diesel trucks since the widespread adoption of turbochargers, even those mostly boost HP not necessarily economy, the basic design and construction of the semi-tractor hasnt really changed since the 1930's

...you'd of thought someone, somewhere would be thinking, "Hey maybe we should begin research into designing more fuel efficient trucks"? Guess not. Too hard to think outside the metal box?

Maybe its time for more aerodynamic trucks, better engines, and smaller local delivery trucks, Biodiesel? Hybrid truck engines? time to start thinking outside the same old same old....someone enlightne me?"

 

Considering what you said, it does not seem to me that I mischaracterized your statements when I replied to your post by saying: "Moreover, I speculate that it is highly inaccurate to say that truck fuel efficiency design has not changed since 1930."  Your whole point concerning design seems to be about fuel efficiency.

In the above post where you say you are talking about basic design, not fuel efficiency, you show examples to prove your point, and mention that trucks still are shaped like bricks.  But it seems to me that in the terms of design that you say is not changing, you could say the same for diesel locomotives, or steam for that matter.  If the engine of trucks has been in front for the last 60 years, maybe that's the best place for it.  Why change it?  And then you continue your theme of trucks failing to evolve in design by again connecting it to how it affects fuel economy as you mention the difficulty of reducing the wind resistance on a brick.

I am not sure what you mean when you said this:

"Of course their have been improvements in almost every single aspect of the internals since the 1930s, fuel injection, electronic, turbo-charging, I'm well aware of that. My contention is that while automobiles have changed significantly, even diesel locomotive technology has changed radically since the 1960's we haven't seen similar rate of progress in the semi truck universe."

If trucks have been internally improved in every single aspect, what lack of progress are you referring to?

[edbenton]

The Truck Manufactors YES they could come out with a Hybrid tractor trailer however WHO could afford to buy it in the trucking indusrty.  When you try to run an industry on a margin of less than 1% alot of times you can not invest in the latest and greatest technolgy.  Right now there are ALOT OF MAJOR companies hurting in the wallet.  I am hearing on Trucking realated message boards that companies like TMC Barr-Nunn Sharkey Yellow USF J B Hunt and others are Hemorrigning CASH out the door right now.  Last quarter over 9300 trucking companies closed their doors PERMENTLY and this quarter from what we are hearing that was a drop in the bucket by the time this is done we may loose 30% of all the cargo carring capacity of this nation that happens we are SCREWED.

[vsmith]

Bucyrus, please reread my statement, I never anywhere said fuel economy had not changed, I said the basic design of the truck has not changed since the 1930's, and this is true, look at the following:

1939 & 1940:

High radiator, long hood, front engined, traditional cab, rear drive. At the time it was essentially an enlarged pick-up truck with the bed removed and a 5^th wheel added to accommodate a trailer. The basic layout of semi ever since.

 

1962 Loadstar, bigger but basic design remains the same

 

Modern 2 axle design, sure looks the same to me, maybe a little smoother bodywork

To the modern 3 axle models,

extra rear axle for loading and a cab sleeper for long distance but is overall layout is essentially unchanged from the bedless pick up truck of the 30's.

Of course their have been improvements in almost every single aspect of the internals since the 1930s, fuel injection, electronic, turbo-charging, I'm well aware of that. My contention is that while automobiles have changed significantly, even diesel locomotive technology has changed radically since the 1960's we haven't seen similar rate of progress in the semi truck universe.

Expresslane

I feel your pain about ever shifting regulations, seems like once a manufacturer complies with Regulation X, they have to start from scratch all over again to meet Regulation Y, I suspect this may have a lot more to do with slow pace of technological changes.

Doug,

Why do you think I asked for "enlightenment" about this issue ???

I'm trying to get a better understanding of why it seams truck technology is lagging behind automotive technology.

Aerodynamics are better today but no matter how many aerodynamic flarings you put on the brick, it's still a brick. Trucks have always had this issue, and even though the front ends have gotten marginally slippier, the rear and inbetween still suck enormous amounts of air along with them, creating the drag that has always been the trucks biggest enemy in fuel economy, and with trucks driving faster than ever (I paced one on the I-5 once going 80+) air resistance still remains as big issue as ever, even with the fiberglass bodywork laden semi up front.

The issue of motor size will always be the driving factor regarding load capacity, my issue is has there been ANY research into Hybrid technology, electric batteries and motors to boost engine performance, if it can work on a Yukon? ANY new research into improved turbo performance or supercharger boost to increase the power with less fuel?

Biodiesel?

Hydrogen?

These are the questions I have, not easy ones to answer. Has anyone is the industry considered where fuel prices may be in 10 years and what technonlogies they need to be developing today to meet those challenges?

Anyone?

Anyone?

Bueller?

Beuller?

 

PS Uncle drove the RED one