• 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.

PzKfW IVe said:
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...


Thanks for your opinion, we have decided to go with the experts who say otherwise! :sun
 
PzKfW IVe said:
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.
Click to expand...
Your question doen't not apply to the issue. I explained that in detail. I'm open to have you show that an answer to your question would apply one way or the other to new design vs. old design tires. Or show why my answers are incorrect.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
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.
Click to expand...

Did you or did you not in the same ****ing post claim he's ignoring other factors while pointing out he talked about them?
 
OhIsee.Then said:
Your question doen't not apply to the issue.
Click to expand...
My question applies to your statement, specifically that more energy is used to overcome friction than to climb hills and change speed.
The application to the issue is obvious.
Show your work.
 
Catawba said:
Thanks for your opinion, we have decided to go with the experts who say otherwise!
Click to expand...
It's pretty clear that you will go with whomever says what you want to hear, regardless of your competence to judge the soundness of what they say.
 
PzKfW IVe said:
It's pretty clear that you will go with whomever says what you want to hear, regardless of your competence to judge the soundness of what they say.
Click to expand...

And that opinion is as asinine as your last opinion. Please, just the facts Ma'am :sun
 
If someone could make a truck get 30% better fuel efficiency they would do so, not because gov mandates it but because they would make a fortune, every trucking comp there is would buy their product. That is the beauty of capitalism.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
If someone could make a truck get 30% better fuel efficiency they would do so, not because gov mandates it but because they would make a fortune, every trucking comp there is would buy their product. That is the beauty of capitalism.
Click to expand...

Apparently, you missed this earlier in the thread:

"Combination tractors will be required to achieve up to approximately 20% reduction in fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions by model year 2018."

"Under the new rules from the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, trucks and buses built in 2014 through 2018 will reduce oil consumption by a projected 530 million barrels and greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution by approximately 270 million metric tons. This program, which relies heavily on off-the-shelf technologies, was developed in coordination with truck and engine manufacturers, fleet owners, the state of California, environmental groups and other stakeholders. "

"This regulation and the process used to establish it are a model for how government and business should work together to meet energy, environment and economic goals." Tim Solso, chairman and CEO of Cummins.

"With this rule, EPA and NHTSA have now set an example for what could be a worldwide GHG and fuel efficiency regulation for heavy duty trucks and engines." Daniel C. Ustian, Navistar chairman, president and CEO.

"We support the new federal regulations on greenhouse gas emissions and fuel efficiency as they affect the commercial vehicles industry. We have worked closely and productively with the EPA and NHTSA and look forward to continued collaboration on implementation of the new standards." Sean Waters, Director Compliance and Regulatory Affairs, Daimler Trucks North America

"This is an important milestone for our industry and our country. We are pleased to be part of a realistic solution that will ultimately help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and conserve natural resources by helping to increase the fuel efficiency of our industry." Douglas W. Stotlar, president and CEO of Con-way Inc.

"Commercial vehicles account for approximately 20 percent of transportation's fuel use, so fuel efficiency standards are essential to spur affordable and widely available cleaner delivery vehicles." Frederick W. Smith, president, CEO and chairman of FedEx Corp."
 
Catawba said:
Apparently, you missed this earlier in the thread:

"Combination tractors will be required to achieve up to approximately 20% reduction in fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions by model year 2018."

"Under the new rules from the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, trucks and buses built in 2014 through 2018 will reduce oil consumption by a projected 530 million barrels and greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution by approximately 270 million metric tons. This program, which relies heavily on off-the-shelf technologies, was developed in coordination with truck and engine manufacturers, fleet owners, the state of California, environmental groups and other stakeholders. "

"This regulation and the process used to establish it are a model for how government and business should work together to meet energy, environment and economic goals." Tim Solso, chairman and CEO of Cummins.

"With this rule, EPA and NHTSA have now set an example for what could be a worldwide GHG and fuel efficiency regulation for heavy duty trucks and engines." Daniel C. Ustian, Navistar chairman, president and CEO.

"We support the new federal regulations on greenhouse gas emissions and fuel efficiency as they affect the commercial vehicles industry. We have worked closely and productively with the EPA and NHTSA and look forward to continued collaboration on implementation of the new standards." Sean Waters, Director Compliance and Regulatory Affairs, Daimler Trucks North America

"This is an important milestone for our industry and our country. We are pleased to be part of a realistic solution that will ultimately help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and conserve natural resources by helping to increase the fuel efficiency of our industry." Douglas W. Stotlar, president and CEO of Con-way Inc.

"Commercial vehicles account for approximately 20 percent of transportation's fuel use, so fuel efficiency standards are essential to spur affordable and widely available cleaner delivery vehicles." Frederick W. Smith, president, CEO and chairman of FedEx Corp."
Click to expand...

That all sounds very nice but I maintain if it was doable it would and could be done for profit incentive alone not due to a gov mandate. Thank you for civil response though.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
That all sounds very nice but I maintain if it was doable it would and could be done for profit incentive alone not due to a gov mandate. Thank you for civil response though.
Click to expand...


You are quite welcome! The fact that it has not been done, disproves your hypothesis.

I think Tim Solso, chairman and CEO of Cummins put it best: "This regulation and the process used to establish it are a model for how government and business should work together to meet energy, environment and economic goals."
 
PzKfW IVe said:
My question applies to your statement, specifically that more energy is used to overcome friction than to climb hills and change speed.
The application to the issue is obvious.
Show your work.
Click to expand...
I did. I said "On average trucks descend 3% grades as much as they ascend them, i.e. we don’t see them flying." Grades don't count. I explained why in some detail. Please read it again.
 
A double digit increase can be accomplished with big rigs, however it would likely be very unpopular. I read or heard a story a year or so ago that mentioned they were taking train engine technology and trying to incorporate it onto big rigs. This included larger engines that ran at a very low RPM (something like 500-800RPM). These engines had a significant improvement in fuel mileage however they were very slow to gain momentum. So if they tried this approach the public outcry would be fierce once people were stuck behind trucks that might take 5-10 minutes to hit 70 mph.
 
Catawba said:
You are quite welcome! The fact that it has not been done, disproves your hypothesis.

I think Tim Solso, chairman and CEO of Cummins put it best: "This regulation and the process used to establish it are a model for how government and business should work together to meet energy, environment and economic goals."
Click to expand...
Actually I think the fact that it hasn't been done proves my hypothesis quite nicely. As i said if this could be done it would be done for the fortune the inventor would make. What you are trying to say is the gov is forceing these engine comps to do something that will make them rich, make their stock soar. It makes no sense.I'll leave it there, I see a merry go round coming LOL.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
If someone could make a truck get 30% better fuel efficiency they would do so, not because gov mandates it but because they would make a fortune, every trucking comp there is would buy their product. That is the beauty of capitalism.
Click to expand...
Yes. This is clearly not grasped by those who believe that government is The Only Way.
 
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...
I have designed many things that had to work in the real world and did. Thousands were made of some of them. Chassis, circuits, cooling, hardware logic, etc.; and they worked in the real world. My publications have stood up to peer review. I have more than ten patents. I started porting with a hand file the 2 cycle lawn mower engine for my doodle bug in 1960. It performed better. Ever replace just one diode with used one purchased at a surplus store in the bridge of an alternator of a car and have it work for over 100 k miles. Rebuilt a ’55 Austin Healy transmission, 351 Cleveland, ……………. Book worm? Stupid?
 
Last edited:
Baralis said:
A double digit increase can be accomplished with big rigs, however it would likely be very unpopular. I read or heard a story a year or so ago that mentioned they were taking train engine technology and trying to incorporate it onto big rigs. This included larger engines that ran at a very low RPM (something like 500-800RPM). These engines had a significant improvement in fuel mileage however they were very slow to gain momentum. So if they tried this approach the public outcry would be fierce once people were stuck behind trucks that might take 5-10 minutes to hit 70 mph.
Click to expand...
A serious issue there is the gearing necessary to run such a low RPM at highway speeds - the effective loss of torque will cripple the vehichles ability to climb any sort of grade, and will require new transmission w/ more gears - all at a greater expense, both in unit cost and maintenance.
 
OhIsee.Then said:
I did. I said "On average trucks descend 3% grades as much as they ascend them, i.e. we don’t see them flying." Grades don't count. I explained why in some detail. Please read it again.
Click to expand...
Translation:
You aoint got squat.
Which, of course, I figured.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Actually I think the fact that it hasn't been done proves my hypothesis quite nicely. As i said if this could be done it would be done for the fortune the inventor would make. What you are trying to say is the gov is forceing these engine comps to do something that will make them rich, make their stock soar. It makes no sense.I'll leave it there, I see a merry go round coming LOL.
Click to expand...

No one is forcing anything, it was a cooperative process with industry. Did you miss the quote I posted by the CEO of Cummins, "This regulation and the process used to establish it are a model for how government and business should work together to meet energy, environment and economic goals."

If industry considered the external cost of environmental degradation on their own in their business plan your point might have merit.
 
When the Chicago thug summons you to his office and says do it or else, you smile and say yes sir. When he says AND pretend you like it you smile and say yes sir. As I said in a previous post if gov mandates for big rigs do what they have done for light truck diesels, god help us. As for private industry doing this for profit instead of gov forcing them to do it there is a caveat. Private industry would make a more efficient motor with better mpg if the cost benefit ratio added up and if they could make the motor reliable. Gov doesn’t care about this stuff. Gov says make it, we don’t care if it ends up costing so much that the fuel saved will never justify the cost and we don’t care if it’s a piece of crap that will constantly break down and won’t last half as long as old style motor, make it or else. So now we are back to global warming theory and gov using it to force private industry to be inefficient and unproductive. Socialism, aint it grand.
 
PzKfW IVe said:
A serious issue there is the gearing necessary to run such a low RPM at highway speeds - the effective loss of torque will cripple the vehichles ability to climb any sort of grade, and will require new transmission w/ more gears - all at a greater expense, both in unit cost and maintenance.
Click to expand...
Baralis said:
A double digit increase can be accomplished with big rigs, however it would likely be very unpopular. I read or heard a story a year or so ago that mentioned they were taking train engine technology and trying to incorporate it onto big rigs. This included larger engines that ran at a very low RPM (something like 500-800RPM). These engines had a significant improvement in fuel mileage however they were very slow to gain momentum. So if they tried this approach the public outcry would be fierce once people were stuck behind trucks that might take 5-10 minutes to hit 70 mph.
Click to expand...
I don’t know what to say about your lack of expertize. A 500 hp power source that runs from 300 to 1200 rpm compared to one that runs from 500 to 2000 require the same number of gears for the same function. However, the gears for the low rpm power source have to be designed for a higher load, therefore bigger. But, for a low rpm power source you can have primary gearing that steps up the rpm into a transmission. Acceleration would be the same if the hp vs rpm curve was the same shape and that is not hard to do.
Torque is not separate from hp, it’s a component of hp. You know the equation that the engineers that design these things use. Oh, I remember now. Truck design engineers don’t know what they are doing because they don’t have the same political beliefs you have. Right?
 
OhIsee.Then said:
Oh, I remember now. Truck design engineers don’t know what they are doing because they don’t have the same political beliefs you have. Right?
Click to expand...
:roll:
Thank you for making it clear that I need not seriously consider anything else you might have to say.
 
PzKfW IVe said:
:roll:
Thank you for making it clear that I need not seriously consider anything else you might have to say.
Click to expand...
You didn't from the beginning, and that's what you essentially confirmed with this post. And I was successful, as an engineer, to demonstrate who you are. Thanks.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
When the Chicago thug summons you to his office and says do it or else, you smile and say yes sir. When he says AND pretend you like it you smile and say yes sir. As I said in a previous post if gov mandates for big rigs do what they have done for light truck diesels, god help us. As for private industry doing this for profit instead of gov forcing them to do it there is a caveat. Private industry would make a more efficient motor with better mpg if the cost benefit ratio added up and if they could make the motor reliable. Gov doesn’t care about this stuff. Gov says make it, we don’t care if it ends up costing so much that the fuel saved will never justify the cost and we don’t care if it’s a piece of crap that will constantly break down and won’t last half as long as old style motor, make it or else. So now we are back to global warming theory and gov using it to force private industry to be inefficient and unproductive. Socialism, aint it grand.
Click to expand...

Ahhhhhhhh, another science denier..............now the reason for your opposition is clear. Thanks! :sun
 
Last edited:
OhIsee.Then said:
I have designed many things that had to work in the real world and did. Thousands were made of some of them. Chassis, circuits, cooling, hardware logic, etc.; and they worked in the real world. My publications have stood up to peer review. I have more than ten patents. I started porting with a hand file the 2 cycle lawn mower engine for my doodle bug in 1960. It performed better. Ever replace just one diode with used one purchased at a surplus store in the bridge of an alternator of a car and have it work for over 100 k miles. Rebuilt a ’55 Austin Healy transmission, 351 Cleveland, ……………. Book worm? Stupid?
Click to expand...
If you can explain 0 energy to keep 80,000 lbs moving im all ears or eyes in this case. Maybe always go downhill with motor off? You claim to be
a very intellegent inventor, invent a diesel motor capable of moving 80,000 lbs that gets great mileage then.You will be the richest man alive if you do. Until then you are all talk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom