• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CAFE standards for big rigs.

OhIsee.Then said:
Yes, but, by far, most of the fuel is used overcoming friction.
Click to expand...
Show this to be true.
Compare the enegry used to overcome friction over a 20-mile struch of road comapred to the energy used to climb a 3% grade for that same 20 miles.
Also, compare the energy used to overcome friction over 1/2 mile to the energy used to accelerate from a stop to 60MPH over that same 1/2 mile.
In both cases, assume a 80,000 gross and 18 standard tires.

You don't need to replace the wheels; you manufacture the truck in the first place with those wheels
Click to expand...
Yes... altnough this adds to the price of a new truck.
It also doesnt account for all of the existing trucks.

One new wheel and tire will cost less than two old ones as soon as the volume is pushed up by artificial means.
Click to expand...
As you are happy to confim - if there were an overall a cost benefit to these, they's be more widespread.
Your idea forces compamies to spend money thay they won't bet back for the tunnel-vision goal of reducing fuel use.
 
I read an interesting article that helps delineate the anti-energy/efficiency position common to many on the far right:

"with few exceptions, today's Republican mind seems to be stuck in Dick Cheney's basement, where if you don't toe the pro-fossils, pro-consumption line you're liable to get shot in the face. Really, the free market of lobbying has spoken: the flow of campaign riches from fossil fuels to Republican officials is three times that given to Democrats.

Since the mid terms, the Republican stand seems to be that more oil is better and damn the climate and all the fuss about spills. And to heck with asthma and other chronic ailments directly linked to automotive pollution -- which along with coal use is bloating our nation's health care costs by hundreds of billions per year according to two well-funded studies (see here and here). And those costs pour directly over to our deficits."

"The military's need for renewable power is clear -- it's to push back on oil dependency for distant bases where transporting oil is a distinct killer of troops. Such oil costs from $20 to $1000 per gallon and comprises between 30-80 percent of every convoy's load.

On another economic note, thanks to Republican disdain for investing in renewable and efficient technologies through consistent policy such as a national renewable energy standard, or a ten or twenty-year production tax credit, US competitiveness is losing out. Governments of Europe, Asia and Latin America have supported this sector and are now exporting their goods and expertise into the States."
Anne Butterfield: Lamborn's Anti-Energy Boondoggle and Republican Failure to Grasp Renewable Energy
 
Catawba said:
I read an interesting article that helps delineate the anti-energy/efficiency position common to many on the far right
Click to expand...
Thank you for your non-topic-related point, enthusiastically supported with raw, partisan bigotry.

When you can tell us how you -specifically- plan to triple the MPG of an 80,000lb vehicle, please feel free to do so.
 
Teilhard said:
Does that thing actually work? I want one if it does
Click to expand...

Here's some more info on the human power hybrid:

I%2BSOLO_pedal_power_car_2.jpg


"The Hungarian manufacturers of this three-seater believe there is a market for a vehicle that requires human input along with the more conventional form of propulsion.

Pedals allow the driver and passengers to help the hybrid system, which consists of lithium-ion batteries that power four electric hub motors and a multi-fuel engine that can be used for long-distance trips. "[The pedals] make it possible to exercise while travelling," the company enthuses on its website, solo-duo.hu.

To round out the alternative fuel sources, high-efficiency solar cells positioned on the roof collect, on average, enough energy to travel up to 25 kilometres at city speeds. The first production cars are scheduled to be on the road next year."
I+SOLO pedal powered car - Cool Motors and Wheels Photos


Here are some smaller one-seater pedal/electric hybrid's made by Porsche:

 
Last edited:
PzKfW IVe said:
Thank you for your non-topic-related point, enthusiastically supported with raw, partisan bigotry.

When you can tell us how you -specifically- plan to triple the MPG of an 80,000lb vehicle, please feel free to do so.
Click to expand...

The article is very to the point regarding the science denier thinking of many on the hard right, that we see examples of so frequently on this forum and from statements by the GOP presidential candidates, with the lone exception of Huntsman.

Let's review that the regulations cited in the OP:

"The regulations call for reductions on fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions by 2018 of 9 to 23 percent, depending on the type of vehicle. Trucks and other heavy vehicles make up only 4 percent of the domestic vehicle fleet, but given the distance they travel, the time they spend idling and their low fuel efficiency, they end up consuming about 20% of all vehicle fuel, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Experts say that a 20 percent reduction in heavy vehicle emissions would boost fuel efficiency to an average of 8 miles per gallon from 6 miles now."

And increase of 2 mpg is hardly tripling the mpg now is it? Tell us again how it would impossible to increase the fleet mileage by 2 mpg over the next 7 years.
 
Catawba said:
The article is very to the point regarding the science denier thinking of many on the hard right...
Click to expand...
Whcih is off-topic.
While I understand that you are virtually always forced to offer bigoted, partisan red herrings, that doesn't change the fact that they are bigoted, partisan red herrings

And increase of 2 mpg is hardly tripling the mpg now is it?
Click to expand...
No... but raising it by the 10MPG you offered, is:

Catawba said:
"Raising fuel economy by 10 miles per gallon nationwide will deliver real benefits. The Union of Concerned Scientists, for example, estimates that it will save 1.1 million barrels of oil per day in 2020--about half of what the United States imports from the Persian Gulf."
Click to expand...
When you can tell us how you -specifically- plan to triple the MPG of an 80,000lb vehicle, please feel free to do so.
 
PzKfW IVe said:
Whcih is off-topic.
While I understand that you are virtually always forced to offer bigoted, partisan red herrings, that doesn't change the fact that they are bigoted, partisan red herrings
Click to expand...


The views that I spoke to are well documented in this thread.


No... but raising it by the 10MPG you offered, is:


When you can tell us how you -specifically- plan to triple the MPG of an 80,000lb vehicle, please feel free to do so.
Click to expand...

I never said that and you are off topic. The regulation says 2 mpg over 7 years. Do you consider this technically feasible or not?
 
Catawba said:
The views that I spoke to are well documented in this thread.
Click to expand...
Yes. Alost all of which are off-topic bigoted partisan red herrings.

I never said that and you are off topic.
Click to expand...
This is a lie -- I provided the quote and a link to same where you said exactly that.

The regulation says 2 mpg over 7 years.
Click to expand...
YOU said +10MPG, tripling the current 5.
Can you or can you not tell us how you -specifically- plan to triple the MPG of an 80,000lb vehicle?



Do you consider this technically feasible or not?[/QUOTE]
 
PzKfW IVe said:
Yes. Alost all of which are off-topic bigoted partisan red herrings.


This is a lie -- I provided the quote and a link to same where you said exactly that.


YOU said +10MPG, tripling the current 5.
Can you or can you not tell us how you -specifically- plan to triple the MPG of an 80,000lb vehicle?



Do you consider this technically feasible or not?
Click to expand...

If you had read the link in which the post with that statement ( a quote from the link). You would have realized the 10 mpg increase is not for class 5 trucks but an overall vehicle increase for cars, light duty trucks and up
The new law tightens Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards that regulate the average fuel economy in the vehicles produced by each major automaker. The current CAFE standard for cars, set in 1984, requires manufacturers to achieve an average of 27.5 miles per gallon, while a second CAFE standard requires an average of 22.2 miles per gallon for light trucks such as minivans, sport utility vehicles, and pickups. The new rules require that these standards be increased such that, by 2020, the new cars and light trucks sold each year deliver a combined fleet average of 35 miles per gallon.

Raising fuel economy by 10 miles per gallon nationwide will deliver real benefits. The Union of Concerned Scientists, for example, estimates that it will save 1.1 million barrels of oil per day in 2020--about half of what the United States imports from the Persian Gulf
Click to expand...

A fuller quote from the link
 
PzKfW IVe said:
Yes. Alost all of which are off-topic bigoted partisan red herrings.


This is a lie -- I provided the quote and a link to same where you said exactly that.


YOU said +10MPG, tripling the current 5.
Can you or can you not tell us how you -specifically- plan to triple the MPG of an 80,000lb vehicle?
Click to expand...

Bull****!

Your strawman is of no interest since the regulation only requires a 2 mpg increase over 7 years. It is was the point of the OP. Go back and check if you do not believe me.

And you didn't answer my direct question regarding the OP, do you consider this technically feasible or not?
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
Bull****, you are thinking of someone else. Link to the supposed quote if you can.

Your strawman is of no interest since the regulation only requires a 2 mpg increase over 7 years. It is was the point of the OP. Go back and check if you do not believe me.

And you didn't answer my direct question regarding the OP, do you consider this technically feasible or not?
Click to expand...
Originally Posted by Catawba
"Raising fuel economy by 10 miles per gallon nationwide will deliver real benefits. The Union of Concerned Scientists, for example, estimates that it will save 1.1 million barrels of oil per day in 2020--about half of what the United States imports from the Persian Gulf."


You made the post, but it was not in the context Pzfk stated it was. You were refering to the link which was stating the benifits of an increase in CAFE standards by 10 mpg for cars and light trucks
 
OhIsee.Then said:
First you need to know what the laws of physics are. It takes zero energy to keep 80,000 lbs moving once it is moving. Trucks spent most of the time just working against friction, tires and air. For years there have been new tires that have much lower friction per ton of load. The ‘new’ tires are wider and one replaces two of the old ones. You have probably seen them. The ‘new’ tires have been around for quite some time, but switching over will require I’ll do it if you do it which takes a very long time; or an external force, the Gov. Another thing about the new tires is that their center of load can be set to nearer the side of the vehicle. Axels have to be changed to allow this, but a more stable vehicle will result.
Click to expand...

“Zero energy to keep 80,000 lbs. moving once it’s moving” .JUST SHOOT ME! Good lord you book worms are freakin stupid. Sorry I try to be very polite in here but really. Maybe on the moon your comment would be accurate but in the REAL WORLD you have friction which you sort of addressed, wind resistance, hills and gravity. Get your face out of books out of the class room and into the real world. OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHM You may have stroked me out.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
“Zero energy to keep 80,000 lbs. moving once it’s moving” .JUST SHOOT ME! Good lord you book worms are freakin stupid. Sorry I try to be very polite in here but really. Maybe on the moon your comment would be accurate but in the REAL WORLD you have friction which you sort of addressed, wind resistance, hills and gravity. Get your face out of books out of the class room and into the real world. OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHM You may have stroked me out.
Click to expand...

So, what you're saying is that he failed to account for friction when he specifically mentioned friction.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Originally Posted by Catawba
"Raising fuel economy by 10 miles per gallon nationwide will deliver real benefits. The Union of Concerned Scientists, for example, estimates that it will save 1.1 million barrels of oil per day in 2020--about half of what the United States imports from the Persian Gulf."


You made the post, but it was not in the context Pzfk stated it was. You were refering to the link which was stating the benifits of an increase in CAFE standards by 10 mpg for cars and light trucks
Click to expand...

Yes, thank you! I saw from your last post that Pzfk was referring to the source I cited regarding raising fuel economy by 10 mpg nationwide. Thanks for clearing that up. I knew I had never said that big rigs could increase by 10mpg.

I can't imagine who would think though that it is not feasible to increase big trucks mileage by 2 mpg over the next 7 years.
 
Deuce said:
So, what you're saying is that he failed to account for friction when he specifically mentioned friction.[/QUOTE

You guys think im test tube terms, you have no concept of reality. I have driven log truck pulling 80,000 lbs up a 10% grade with the pedal to the metal, smoke billowing out, engine roaring, if you ever felt the power needed to do this through the seat of your pants you would not say the stupid things you do.
Click to expand...
 
sawyerloggingon said:
You guys think im test tube terms, you have no concept of reality. I have driven log truck pulling 80,000 lbs up a 10% grade with the pedal to the metal, smoke billowing out, engine roaring, if you ever felt the power needed to do this through the seat of your pants you would not say the stupid things you do.
Click to expand...

Don't change the subject. You're accusing him of not accounting for friction and then saying he talked about friction.
 
Catawba said:
Bull****!

Your strawman is of no interest since the regulation only requires a 2 mpg increase over 7 years. It is was the point of the OP. Go back and check if you do not believe me.
Click to expand...
The link that I posted that leads to your quote, tells all the truth that needs to be told.
YOU were talking about a +10MPG increase to 15MPG, which triples the current standard.
Can you or can you not tell us how you -specifically- plan to triple the MPG of an 80,000lb vehicle?
 
PzKfW IVe said:
The link that I posted that leads to your quote, tells all the truth that needs to be told.
YOU were talking about a +10MPG increase to 15MPG, which triples the current standard.
Can you or can you not tell us how you -specifically- plan to triple the MPG of an 80,000lb vehicle?
Click to expand...
No he was not, read the link he provided, it is not talking about tractor trailers but autos and light duty trucks
 
PzKfW IVe said:
The link that I posted that leads to your quote, tells all the truth that needs to be told.
YOU were talking about a +10MPG increase to 15MPG, which triples the current standard.
Can you or can you not tell us how you -specifically- plan to triple the MPG of an 80,000lb vehicle?
Click to expand...

LT explained to you the error you made in interpretation of the source I cited. Thank you again LT!

Now getting back to the OP, do you think it is technologically feasible to increase the mileage for tractor trailers by 2 mpg over the next 7 years as the standard actually calls for?
 
Deuce said:
Don't change the subject. You're accusing him of not accounting for friction and then saying he talked about friction.
Click to expand...
Subject is MPG standards for big rigs, my post specifically addresses that, your post tries to change the subject. Typical lib,you try to obfuscate and deflect from the real subject . You guys do this as you get painted into a corner by facts and logic, happens every time. You also try to bait people into some petty argument to change the subject, nice try I won't bite. Troll somewhere else.
 
PzKfW IVe said:
Show this to be true.
Compare the enegry used to overcome friction over a 20-mile struch of road comapred to the energy used to climb a 3% grade for that same 20 miles.
Also, compare the energy used to overcome friction over 1/2 mile to the energy used to accelerate from a stop to 60MPH over that same 1/2 mile.
In both cases, assume a 80,000 gross and 18 standard tires.


Yes... altnough this adds to the price of a new truck.
It also doesnt account for all of the existing trucks.


As you are happy to confim - if there were an overall a cost benefit to these, they's be more widespread.
Your idea forces compamies to spend money thay they won't bet back for the tunnel-vision goal of reducing fuel use.
Click to expand...
I’m a retired design engineer, mechanical, electronic computer HW & SW. So the first thing I do is to look at the problem that needs to solved. In this case you presented me with a problem that doesn’t need to be solved because of the magnitude of essentially level travel vs. climbing and descending. First I get to toss out the weight and the number of wheels. If it doesn’t work for a wide range of weights and wheels then it doesn’t work. So first I’ll define travel climbing and descending a 3% grade. Most trucks with a load can climb a 3% grade w/o decelerating much, but speed would be a consideration for aerodynamics. Tire friction loss mostly by the mile so its MPG effect is about the same regardless of speed. So I’m tossing out speed. On average trucks descend 3% grades as much as they ascend them, i.e. we don’t see them flying. A 3% down grade is not quite enough for a truck to roll w/o help from the engine. So the lower tire friction helps in both modes. Now the efficiency of the engine is greater climbing a 3% grade than descending a 3% grade, but that doesn’t matter much since it averages out to be just a bit less than level road. So what is left to calculate for? “Also, compare the energy used to overcome friction over 1/2 mile to the energy used to accelerate from a stop to 60MPH over that same 1/2 mile.” Easy, the incremental fuel used to accelerate to 60 in a half mile over driving at 60 for a half mile is huge; but not a big as I thought it was. I researched and found that a loaded 18 wheel truck runs at about 50% power, so up to 80%. So the truck will use about double the fuel. That will reduce the % saving from the ‘new’ tires by 50% during that ½ mile. But, the amount of fuel saved for the ½ mile by the tires is the same, therefore the payback for the new tires is in the same number of miles. Acceleration falls out of consideration. It also falls out for a more obvious reason, trucks don’t spend much time accelerating compared to driving at 65.
I don’t think existing trucks are required to meet the new standards. Truckers will get back the investment in in fuel savings a new truck. The engineers have done their job. I’ve been in a similar engineering position myself with an entirely different product that had a recurring cost, but not fuel. Large very high-tech companies liked it.
 
Catawba said:
Now getting back to the OP, do you think it is technologically feasible to increase the mileage for tractor trailers by 2 mpg over the next 7 years as the standard actually calls for
Click to expand...
That's a 33% increase.
Given that the weight and dimensions of the vehicles and the demenads these figures place on their drivertains will not change to any significant degree over the next 7 years, I'd say no.
You, I am sure, will disagree. Specifically, why?
 
OhIsee.Then said:
I’m a retired design engineer, mechanical, electronic computer HW & SW.
Click to expand...
I see a lot of talk - but I don't see an answer to my question, especially given the way you redefined the situation to suit your position, and you distinct lack of specifics.
Try again; show your work.
 
PzKfW IVe said:
That's a 33% increase.
Given that the weight and dimensions of the vehicles and the demenads these figures place on their drivertains will not change to any significant degree over the next 7 years, I'd say no.
You, I am sure, will disagree. Specifically, why?
Click to expand...

Because it is logical it can be done, and the experts, including the trucking industry agree! This has already been pointed out to you in this thread courtesy of Mattillac:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news-news-2-0/106473-cafe-standards-big-rigs-5.html#post1059724740
 
Catawba said:
Because it is logical it can be done...[/qipte]
It is logical... because it was done with cars?
As I said before: Completeely different set of circumstances.
You -continue- to make me laugh.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom