Opinions on gliders

[Rawze]

(03-16-2017 )Texasdude74 Wrote:  

(03-15-2017 )Rawze Wrote:  If it is truly that bad then maybe you should look into getting an aero truck with a covered car trailer. That is what the last guy had and he loved it. Said he was rarely over 33k loaded.

The math just don't add up at 4 mpg vs 7+ in an
...
Like I said, I just have not been around them at all.

They really are that bad on fuel. I know more than a couple of guys that average in the threes, but most are between 4.0-5.3. Year end averages I'm speaking of, not single tank or quarterly.

It's a logical argument: Why not drive a aero truck and pull a high mount? The loss of 3-4 units in capacity could be offset by the fuel savings. Here's why it's wrong:

First, the difference in fuel cost between 4 and 7 mpg is about $.27/mile. The absolute cheapest vehicles I've hauled in my career was $.36/mile. Even by that bottom dollar rate, it's still a loss of $1.08-1.44/mile in revenue to save $.27/mile in fuel. It would be a much bigger loss than that for me in reality.

Second, high mount and enclosed trailers are more limited in the sizes of vehicles that they can haul. Not only do they haul fewer units, but they have to be smaller units. Bigger stuff generally pays more per mile, sometimes many times more.

Lastly, all high mounts are illegal and technically over length unless hooked to a cab over day cab, which they never are. Only three states: CO, CT and MI are militant about it though. High mounts are also not allowed any overhang off the rear of their trailers while stingers are allowed six feet! This further limits the size and combinations of loads they can haul by a lot. But it just gets worse, because the new Fast Act completely rewrote the rules for stingers this year. Allowing an additional five feet of length and even more front and rear overhang. Which makes high mounts even more irrelevant.

Sadly, for my Porsche fund and my wifes' desire for another new SUV for the upcoming birth of our fifth child in August...and possibly some college funds, I just don't know. I am not unaffected by the new length laws. It means....and it brings a tear to my eye to say it....that Daddys' truck is now....sob......LEGAL.
I won't drive, no legal truck. At least not for long. Next thing you know I'd be going into scale houses. Where would it end??? It's lunacy.

So, to the drawing board it is. At my advanced age (42) this will be the last one for me. Something wicked, this way comes.

If the fuel mileage is truly only about 3-4 mpg, that is the equivalent fuel consumption as a heavy road train. I would suspect that the engines would not hold up nearly as long under those kinds of heavy torque conditions and the average torque loads would be very high too. If this is the case then I would suspect all the other thgings seen with this type of operation would apply too.

For an ISX ...


* Engine worn out in 600k miles instead of a million.

* Having to change oil every 8,000 miles or so max.

* Turbocharger always running slightly hotter making them only last 400-500k miles instead of 600+k miles.

* bottom end due at 400k miles unless oil pressure is stepped up and/or gear lube was used.

* 1650 would be the optimum rpm at all times while loaded, so truck would have to be geared as such.

=====

Personally, if I was forced to drive something that used 80%+ engine load all the time i would first and foremost do everything in my power to reduce this and bring the efficiency up as much as possible. That is your biggest expense, not just from fuel mileage but all the damn wear in the engine and other components.

Sure you get a bit more for a few extra cars but what offset in wear and other costs is it setting you back? -- I still don't much see it. All your costs on the engine, drive train, and every thing else come 40% quicker on average. This means you will do TWO inframes at 1.2 million miles instead of one and also have 2x the down-time due to problems. All those costs plus the lower fuel economy still don't add up if you ask me unless your getting very top dollar for every vehicle put on the thing.

For this reason, I would focus very very strongly on lowering these costs by gearing the truck much lower and traveling much slower then other trucks too. - I.E. i would certianly would not be any kind of cow-boy trucker barreling down the roads at 65+ all day long with it, the differences in costs just don't add up.

This would also mean to me that for every car hauler I see on the roads is going 70+ and even 75 some of them out west and if their freight is that tight to have to go that fast (I seriously doubt it because much better management of time would prevail) then it is sheer stupidity to push the equipment that hard. -- Next time I see one pass me, I will shake my head and know they are just simply dumb-asses pissing up wind as hard as they can, wearing out their truck and wasting fuel, etc. just to make ends meet. -- What a shame.

====

There is absolutely no substitute for knuckling down full force and becoming more profitable in what you do. Optimizing your pickup/delivery times, lowering speeds, minimizing torque load on the engine from better gearing, and everything else to reduce expenses and wear use on your equipment . So for all those cow-boy car haulers out there hell bent on 70+ mph and big power,... My own opinion is that it is JUST A STUPID THING TO DO THAT ONLY HAS ITS BASIS ON WHAT THE NEXT GUY IS DOING and not what makes you the most money.

You had better believe I would figure out how to overcome those odds and it would not involve going fast at all, especially if it was that much harder on the equipment.

Just my own BS single-minded view of it, no one has to agree at all. Remember, I am full of S##it.