Speed Limiters

[moose]

Well ,that will get your attention ...
introduction :

*slowing down a truck will save fuel .

thats statement is actually wrong ,yes it will save the truck some fuel , but if slow to mach , it will burn more fuel for the vehicles around the truck , by breaking and exelorating

*Slowing down a truck is safe .

thats statement is wrong , as it creat a rolling hazard for all other vehicle's.The safest way of travel is for all vehicles to move at the same speed .

*Slowing down a truck will save money .

Thats statement is also wrong !
while it will save the trucker money , in a one truck one trip operation , a smart O/O is looking at the speed to chose for one load at a time .
one must ask himself : what is the slowest speed i can drive (within rezone )
Or : what is the right speed for the load ?
and still make the best money this week.
in many cases its pay to get there earlier.
once a limiter is installed , you don't have that option anymore.

point made :

* slowing down a fleet will save money.

thats statement is wrong !!!
wait a minute,wait a minute, wait a minute...
we all heard in the pasts few months about swift/Schneider's/con-way ... Ext.
stating a saving of 30 Mil.$ by slowing down the fleet 3 MPH

Here is how its work on the real world .
an O/O have the option of choosing the right speed for the load.
choosing to slow down to save fuel if it will make no more money getting there earlier .
and choosing to run less mil./year and save on fuel.
AKA : work smarter not harder.

at the fleet level it cannot work .
a fleet is running X amount of mil. per year , and its got to have X amount of trucks to del. the freight .
once the fleet is govern at a speed ,
by slowing the whole fleet 3 MPH ,
you will need more trucks to Del. the same freight ,
as it will take each truck longer to be available for the next load.
the fleet will need more trucks , larger facility's ,more office personals ... Ext.
it will all coasts more money.
a truck that used to run 100 K/Year , at 65 Hours a week,
will now drive 96K/year at 65 per week...
a fleet that log 100 million Mil/year, will need more trucks.
so why do they do it , and how can they save so match money ??
for once , by insurance premium,
as it coasts the insurance company less on claims , (they don't pay the rear-end collisions and all the other mess that a slow truck leave behind).

Point made :

the Carrier save all that money by paying its drivers less !!!

not even one press release indicate a pay raise, to compensate for the lost revenue for its company drivers.

lets say , you are driving for swift for 5 years now , and got it to the point ,that you maximize your logbook .
last year you made 50,000 $ , driving 65MPH , at 65 hours a week.
by slowing down your truck to 62MPH , you will make 47,692 $
working the same 65 hours a week.
thats a 2,307 $ pay cot.
at 10,000 trucks :
thats :
23,070,000 $

this is just another way of the ATA shoveling cheap-labor into the industry .
I called OOIDA 3 times on this , stating thats it is an opportunity for OOIDA to stand-up for company drivers ,
never heard back .
wish you will call too.
Moose.

 

[nightcreacher]

i can drive justa s far at 63mph that i can at 65,just because truck runs 65 mph doesnt mean you can go 65 miles in an hour.everytime you stop that truck you loose 15 minuets,if you drive 10 hours non stop,with traffic,and such,either at 65 or 63 your still only going to go about 58 miles in an hour.

 

[CharlesD]

Controlling the time spent on stops and the number of stops can go a long way toward having a better average speed over a long trip. I just finished a run from St. Paul to New York City and over one stretch the same truck passed me about six times. Who was driving faster? Who was averaging a better speed? He was driving a lot faster than me, but was obvioiusly stopping more. Only stop when you have to and don't waste time when you do and you'll save fuel and time.

With that said, I still oppose speed limiters and split speed limits, but not for economic reasons. For me it's a matter of safety and traffic flow. You have traffic backups because one truck is passing another and can't punch it to get around any faster and there are those times where you really need to punch it to merge or avoid a potential accident. I don't drive fast, but I wouldn't want to drive a vehicle that is limited at a certain speed and I can't punch it when I need to.

And while we're at it, get rid of lane restrictions too. I've seen trucks passing on the right when the left lane is clear and that just shouldn't happen. A lot of these restrictions on trucks actually create more unsafe conditions on the roads.

 

[Jack_Berry]

charlesd, i had the same deja vu experience on vaca last year. in one day i was passed by the same two women in a volvo sport ute three times. i was 5 over in s.d and wyoming and she was blowing past each time.

 

[always confused]

actually what speed produces the best fuel economy is a function of gear ratios and engine power. in the 70s much fuel was wasted by 55 speed limits because gears were setup for 70mph. a little expermenting will let you discover your trucks sweet spot - best fuel vs speed. the load and terrian will make cause some changes, especially if the engine is too small. i agree split speed limits are a danger if more than 10 mph difference. cruise control is your friend, but not always useable due to traffic.

 

[LDB]

Slowing down a truck will save fuel. True. For every mph over 50mph a truck will burn 0.1gal more fuel. If a truck gets 6mpg at 70mph it will get 7 mpg at 60mph and 8 mpg at 50mph.

Slowing down a truck is safe. True, within certain limitations. It is not the responsibility of any driver to speed up to the flow speed of traffic just to flow and be safe. Considering the exponential increases in stopping distances slower is almost always safer.

Slowing down a truck will save money. True. As shown in point one, fuel consumption can drop as much as 25%. Truck 1 drives 120k miles per year and runs 70mph at every chance, averaging 6mpg overall. That uses 20,000 gallons of fuel. At $5/gal that's $100k for fuel. Truck 2 drives 120k miles per year and runs 50mph at every chance, averaging 8mpg overall. That uses 15,000 gallons of fuel. At $5/gal that's $75k for fuel. An extra $25,000 in the bank at the end of the year is real money savings.

The argument of having to get there and get empty in a big hurry just can't be proven. Certainly there may be a few jobs lost by not being there sooner. The part that has to be accounted for is how many more jobs have to be run to make back the thousands of dollars burned up by speed. I do not believe the burned up money can be recovered in extra jobs, especially when the extra expense of the extra runs is factored in.

Running fast is not necessarily a synonym for running smart.

 

[dhalltoyo]

Well ,that will get your attention ...
introduction :

*Slowing down a truck is safe .


thats statement is wrong , as it creat a rolling hazard for all other vehicle's.The safest way of travel is for all vehicles to move at the same speed .

Oh yes! We have seen the criminals (uh, that's what you are when you break the law) all traveling through the POSTED construction zones at 65mph when the POSTED limit is clearly and legally marked for 45mph.


I always ask them on the CB if they saw the 45mph POSTED Speed Limit. Usually, the reply is, "Were just all traveling the same speed." Duh! Hey, here's a quantum leap for you boys, let's all travel at 45mph. You know, so we don't risk the lives of the guys repairing the roads we travel on.


I worked on a paving crew and it is very freaky with big trucks and other traffic blowing by you at 65mph. You risk my life and I take it personally.


Based upon the statement, "The safest way of travel is for all vehicles to move at the same speed," it just opens the door for operators to drive as fast as they choose to drive...and that is what is happening out here.


As so stated by the previous posters...consistent OTR speed is the key to fuel efficiency.


When trucks, and cars, blow by me and we meet further up the road in a traffic jam, or construction zone, or at a fuel stop, I blow the horn, smile, wave, shrug my shoulders and ask em', "So what did you gain?"

 

[CharlesD]

It seems to me that one way to address the problem would be to have a uniform speed limit but enforce it strictly for all vehicles. I see a lot of cars flying down the highways at ridiculous speeds all the time and how many of them are getting tickets. Why not just have 65 mph for all vehicles and enforce it. I think the tolerance level is too great. Give people 5 mph over and more than that you get a ticket. It seems that people don't get ticketed unless they're going quite a bit faster than that, unless it's a truck.

 

[babs3361]

The only speed limiter need is the sign on the side of the highway. Or the decision made by a company to put speed limiters on there truck. that is a business decision not big brother telling us what to do. Why would anyone agree with big brother taking away a decision of a business but we allow them to do it all the time. We need goverment to keep ther nose out of business decisions. We all need to make a decision to make our business profitable or we will not be in business. There are many studies that prove that speed limiters are unsafe but safety is not there main concern it is only the money. Weather it be the ATA or Big brother it is all about the money and not leaving business decisions up to the endividual company. OOIDA has been fighting this for years. But when it comes right down to it it is who has money and members and ATA has alot more members mostly made up of big business that has trucking interest but are not trucking companies. If all truck drivers would join OOIDA they would be a voice with 3+ million voters. Now that would say something in Washington. I have heard people that bash OOIDA but they are the only voice for all drivers and small business owners in this industry. I don't agree with everything they do if I did they would have to be god. Communisim is sneaking up on us a little at a time, and we the people keep allowing it because of political correctness or as I put is Petty Crap.

 

[FIS53]

I have to disagree with some of the first statements about slowing down does not make any savings. YES IT DOES!!!

First on longer runs travelling slower will save fuel and that means more money in your pocket.

Secondly driving slower and utilizing less fuel means either less time refuelling or stopping further along on the route to refuel and in some cases fewer fuel stops as less fuel used.

Thrid it does save brakes and other components and in doing so over the life of a truck will save on maintenance costs overall.

Fourth speed only saves time on shorter runs. On long hauls you'll spend more time in the fuel stations so little to no time savings.

So will you deliver and be ahead of others in line for the next call by speeding so much?? Well for the most part only sometimes. I've found it really did not make that much difference unless I knew ahead of time that the destination board was clear and I was close as usually when I'm out 30 miles the board has 1-4 guys show up on it so no use running fast and hard.
Rob

 

[mjolnir131]

ok the work zone thing is not what was being talked about, however people who speed thriugh a work zone need tied face first to a conrete divider and have vehile pass inches from there nose.

as stated speed disparage is what couses the accedents so having diffent speed in exess of 7-10 mph is more dangerous. it's a fact and there have been a quite a few roads in the usa where the speed was equalized and the accedent rate dropped drastically.

as far as speed saving or burning fuel speed has little or nothing to dowith it it's engine rpm only. now you can tinker around with an engin and build one that gets better milage at 45-55 but no matter what you do it will still have better mpg around 63 give or take thats the nature of the beast.

it's all rpm the bestmilage is right at 1350-1400 give or take so for me empty with my MBE i have to run at 65-66 to be most fuel effent and 63-64 with a 5000lb load like was also said earlier you have to drive your load watch your tach most have a green band and you want to keep it near the middle and try not to go out of that range.Hills take alot of practse to keep t in that range ,but even a cruse control will keep it there it just burns a little extra fuel at the top of the hill then you need to but it will be better than dropping your rpm to low.at 55 most every truck out there is in the yellow zone well below 1200 rpm,i won't metion any wako states that want to claim they are an envoermental leader when they have every truck in the state burning as much fuel as it almost possabley can.

as was already stated fuel ecomomy is a funtion of the gear box and weight of the load; the more your tach reads 1400 rpm the more your driving at the best fuel consuption.

p.s.-oh and if they did build an engine that ran at 55mph at 1400 rpm it probably would drop down to 15 mph with a 6000 lb load on a moteratte grade and i highly dought it would make it up to the 4th of july pass or the big hill on I-24 there in tn.

 

[Moot]

I learned from a wise old trucker years ago, if you want to increase your fuel mileage and still make good time; keep your driver's side door closed.

 

[arkjarhead]

I like it when you are cruising along down the interstate at about 63-65 and the same bull hauler or chicken hauler passes you like 5 times in a single day. All that speed is getting him no where, because like Moot said the guy can't keep that left door closed.

 

[Crazynuff]

It's been proven by several studies speed limiters increase the risk of accident . As far as stopping distance goes you know that is determined by time interval between vehicles . If you go slower than the flow of traffic you are passed more , more vehicles cut in front of you , and you lose the safe interval more often .
Here is the real reason ATA petitioned for speed limiters Governing speeds - Truckers News .
With the exception of Jet Express which uses O/O's , all the carriers that cosigned the petition hire and train people with no experience and limit their speeds to 65-68 m.p.h. . A competitor doesn't have to be speeding to have a competitive edge . Driving the speed limit in states with 70 and 75 m.p.h. gives them an advantage ATA wants to eliminate .
But ATA doesn't want the playing field leveled . ATA wants to have the edge by having their trucks speeding in states with 55 m.p.h. - 65 m.p.h. speed limits . The light green trailers of Jet Express are often spotted in the left lane of Ohio running 65 m.p.h. plus .
U.S.Xpress trucks can be seen doing the same but not as much as they did before they were audited in December '06 . Check their SaferSys history (DOT # 303024 ) . Their Safety Management rating was the lowest I've seen a carrier receive and they were fined $7500 for log book falsification . Really interesting allowing log falsification is a felony but no one was persecuted at USX . Pat Quinn , ATA chairman most vocal for speed limiters is president of USX

 

[Jack_Berry]

schneider anf jb hunt have stated that setting lower speed limits on their trucks will save millions in fuel costs. there are posts elsewhere on this subject.

ontario has passed the truck limiter law. i would also like to see the limiters placed on all automobiles. imagine the outcry when four wheelers have to follow the law. then the only ones without limiters would be cops and emergency workers. if the law is good for one class of citizen it is good for everyone.

 

[Crazynuff]

schneider anf jb hunt have stated that setting lower speed limits on their trucks will save millions in fuel costs. there are posts elsewhere on this subject.

ontario has passed the truck limiter law. i would also like to see the limiters placed on all automobiles. imagine the outcry when four wheelers have to follow the law. then the only ones without limiters would be cops and emergency workers. if the law is good for one class of citizen it is good for everyone.

I regularly drive in Ontario . The speed limiter regulation will allow trucks operating in the U.S. to have the capability to disable the speed limiter when they cross the border entering the U.S. . When I am limited to 105 km/h in Ontario I will avoid the right lanes as much as possible . After all , it's all about fuel conservation and altering my speed for vehicles entering ramps is not maximum fuel efficiency .
I agree if limiters are required they should be required on all vehicles . But imagine the effect on sales on vehicles like Corvette , BMW , and Porsche
Schneider also mentioned easing immigration laws will save them millions in labor costs . Their CEO told a House Transportation Committee their pay rate is actually lower than it was in the 80's .
Truckin' Bozo Group :: View topic - Found this while looking at old magazines in my truck...

 

[TS462]

See the one good thing about owning my truck is i can use whatever speed i like. and if the company tries to tell me i need one then me and my truck go someplace else