Why doesn't everyone add after-market efficiency add-ons to their trucks?

That is the subject of this thread and the spirit of my post. I am not talking about brake pads or air filters in this case.

 

I pick up new trailers at the various manufacturers all the time. At the moment less than 50% of them come with side skirts, and most of those trailers are going to wind up being used in California, where carriers get a fine if they don't have them.
If there was a clear net savings, ROI easily quantified, I am sure every trailer would be so equipped. But clearly many fleets still doubt their total efficiency. Trailer Tails are even more dubious. I can't wait for the front lower fairings on the "New Cascadia" to start to get ripped off on snow banks and curbs, turning hundreds of dollars of fuel savings into thousands of dollars of extra maintenance cost.

 

I just got a new trailer from great dane.... side skirts installed at dealer. They are good for .25 to .4 mpg ... Dealer also puts in reefer motor as well as all the extra chicken lights I wanted. I guess they come pretty standard from the factory... although it does have the way beefier rear impact guard that is required for Canadian standards from factory..

Return on investment is often unjustified if the fuel saving device just requires more maintenance or replacing. That's why not everyone runs everything.

 

I agree that side skirts have the most efficiency potential. And anecdotally I can prove it. But until some one shows me a proper long term double blind test of any device in question I will still have my doubts. Almost all of the data around is provided by the manufacturers of the devices them selves. This would be something the ATA, which has the deep pockets should be doing for the industry. Hiring an independent laboratory to do testing IN THE REAL WORLD, not just around a test track in Ohio, or a simulation in a wind tunnel.
At least 25 trailers with, and 25 without, all fuel consumed tracked by the tractors involved in the study over the say 12 months of the test, over the entire 48 states. Random choice of drivers, all tractors speced the same to eliminate that variable.
Then show me the money.

 

7mo to 1.5 yrs huh? Guess celadon is out.

 

My testing is from back when I had a truck that was very consistent on fuel, loads and routes were consistent, no idle time and no fuel used for dpf regens. Always .25 to .4 improvement, depended on how far up I could close the trailer wheelbase, it was always diminishing loads except every week the orders were a bit different with how many pallets each place took... it worked out to roughly 5% fuel efficiency gain. I am sold. The trick is to never rip them off and they will save a few bucks in fuel expense.