Trailer skirts and mpg

2% might mean a lot to a large company.

Or a large state like California.
Wasn't it CA that first required the skirts?

Around 50 years ago it was also CA that first required NOX crap on cars.
They are always the first to impose, and because they are so large everyone has to follow what they say.

No car company wants (can afford) to lose the CA market.
Many truck companies seem to be leaving there now because of something new.

I was born and raised there, but, I would love to see CA starved out of the union.

 

Completely valid point. These efficiencies work on fleet scales. Hard to justify the cost and upkeep on a single truck.

 

Depends on the operation. I would never put them on my flat, they would get torn off in my operation. But i do run top end low rolling resistant tires.

A typical van or reefer guy would see it being cost effective. They cost what? 3500ish? That would have a quick return assuming you don't go into places that will tear them off.

 

Hard to measure MPG improve for one trailer but driving in crosswind improves a lot.

 

I bought a trailer with skirts back in September and I’m about .30 mpg above where I thought it would be, but I haven’t ran into any real cold weather. It will be after the 2nd or 3rd quarter before I could say for sure.

 

Have a lot of trucks that run dedicated runs, same road, same days, same times each week. Trailers with skirts, with under belly device and nothing. +.2-.3 with the skirts. Takes me about 7 months to re-coupe the cost.

 

They’re $1k-$1200 installed.

 

Have some trailers with that underbelly set up, pack up with snow/ice and don't seem to make near as much difference as regular skirts.

 

Yeah but with the number of idiots these days, will the skirts reach the breakeven point before some dough-head rips them off in a parking lot?