Little Help With a Fuel Efficiency Project Please?

Again, we go back into application. And current models being used in the industry. If it doesn't FIT the industry requirements. It won't matter if it doubles the fuel economy of the truck and trailer combo.

Yours may be a better design, I don't know.

But another design has been patented using "non injected" air. However, the air is routed from beneath the trailer, into the "slipstream" (for the lack of the correct term). Producing a 3-5% fuel savings

The current "louver" design, isn't a louver. It consist of slopped panels providing guidance to alter the "slipstream". They use ZERO space, when it comes time to dock the trailer.

Combined with the non injected air, they effectively increase fuel economy by as much as 15%.

What we currently need, is a zero gap design (tractor to trailer). That would work as well on reefer units, as it did on dry box units.

Got any ideas for that one?

 

I do ... and I'll let you in on it as soon as the patent application is finished.

 

Dude forget about that wind drag ######, its for the bird's. Hydrogen out of Brown Water, cost around $50 to set up and fuel economy goes up 75%, heaps of stuff on the net, like I said I have been run it in my car Saab 9000 Aero for over a year went from ( 9 liters per 100 km to average 2 liters per 100 km in city driving, steam coming out the exhaust ), with no mechanical problems. Your a bright kid do the conversion math. Now looking at truck motor next, start off with 2.4 or 3 liter diesel first for experimentation and then who knows.

 

Bsawyer7:

Here's the deal. If you can demonstrate that level of savings viz fuel economy on fleet trucks in regular service, you guys have a product. You will need to interest a corporate sponsor to help demonstrate the viability and serviceability of the product, as well as the fuel economy claims for general acceptance.

Some thoughts - consider these to be design constraints:

First off, it can't require regulatory changes - the process is much too cumbersome for something like this, even just exemptions for proof-of-concept testing may be a non-starter.

There are enough fixed height and width constraints on the roadway that your product will probably not be accepted if it changes the form factor envelope of a van. I pull a 53' reefer that is 102" wide, and 13'-4" tall - that is probably a maximum, even for enroute purposes due to existing restrictions, lane width, low overpasses, etc. In the east, you have to consider fixed obstructions by the road on narrow routes built as much as 80 years ago to service wagon traffic. Outside of that envelope anything will cause routing problems. It's not just a federal problem, but there are a host of local jurisdiction problems as well.

The product is probably not going to be accepted if it must be removed to enter a constricted dock. First, it requires the time and tools to manipulate the device. Second, many shippers and receivers operate in a constricted space with restricted parking available for inbound and outbound trucks... adding time to change the product configuration to that is not going to help you sell the product. Additionally, it can't endanger the health of the driver in adverse conditions such as -40 degree windchill or 110 degree heat. In any case, many drivers are very lazy leading to the observation that it could very well be removed once and discarded. In large fleets, we quite often have a pool of trailers that are empty and available to a shipper to load as necessary on the property of the shipper. These locations use their own employees or outsource the movement of the trailers to yard drivers - there is quite a lot of damage caused to equipment by these people, who will not be bothered with removal or reinstallation of a fairing on a van. Additionally space is at a premium in many of the trailer yards, so additional width requirements aren't going to be received well.

Small businesses are another problem: I've delivered to places that have perhaps 1 or 2 dock doors with a restricted portal for backing the trailer into a dock. There is no on-street parking, and the tractor is partially blocking the street when fully backed into the dock. That leaves no legal place to remove and reinstall the product, as well as angry citizens who blame the driver for the least delay in their travel. The level of intollerance shown to "evil truck drivers" by the general populace has lead to violence against us.

It absolutely cannot interfere with operation of the van doors, especially when considering refridgerated operations. Consider this: Delivering ice cream in Yuma AZ. The doors have to be opened at the last moment entering the dock, with minimum delays, or the ice cream will melt and be rejected.

It cannot interfere with sliding the tandem unit to meet axle-weight restrictions, ballance for maximizing fuel economy, safety requirements for forklift operators, and bridge laws.

What do you do with the product when having to move the trailer from the dock to a security checkpoint for inspection? In many places this can be up to a mile of travel.

 

Dingokid, I have a setup that is phenominal, will run my motorcycle engine, entirely on the browns gas, go with a pulsed square D wave, break the gas more, you will really get some results. Once this catches on the rest of the industry will understand. Once I go O/O it will be in my truck. I would PM you but I don't have 50 posts.