Slow trucks justified with money

i had a prime driver pass me today Andrew would have been proud
on my way home from Ca i always drive 62 from Sherman Mtn to Omaha and gain .5 mpg for the whole 4500 mile round trip
downhill is good

 

How about everyone just accept the fact that some are slower and some are faster....and drive accordingly.

Scratch that...to simple.

 

I agree. We're all on the same team. Just playing the game a little different.

 

Group hug!

 

A lot of them slow down when you slow down and it keeps getting slower and slower. I don't know what the deal is but it's crazy how many people slow down to pass.

Most of the time if I pretend not to notice them they get scared and put the hammer down for a bit, lol.

 

yes!... lol "that-a do,, that-a do"... let's do the math on that (even though it was downhill)... let's see here, 4500 miles at 7mpg would = 643 or so gallons /// 4500 miles at 6.5mpg would = 692 gallons /// So 692-643 = 49 gallons saved. and lets just be kind and say fuel is $2.50, X that by 49 and that would = $123USD

not bad, sounds like a good diner on the house

 

i get nothing for better mileage
just sarcasm if this trip mileage is less then last trip
there is the satisfaction of telling the owner to shut up thou that i can get 6 mpg like the other guys

 

A safe cmv driver should be looking 12-15 seconds ahead on a dry road more in bad weather. At 75mph a truck is traveling 110 feet per second at 58mph would be 85 feet per second. So a 75mph truck is closing on the 58mph truck at 25 feet per second, and at 75mph or 110 feet per second the driver should be scanning (110 f.p.s. x 12-15 seconds) 1320ft-1650ft ahead. So (1320ft ÷ 25fps closing speed) or (1650ft ÷ 25fps closing speed) meaning it would take between 53-66 seconds from the time a 75mph truck saw the 58mph truck to actually run into the back of them. And if thats not enough time to slow down or get over then the problem is the driver of the 75mph truck not paying attention and not that the driver of the slower truck is causing an unsafe situation.

 

Btw feet per second can be figured like this 75mph x 5280 feet in a mile = 390, 000 feet per hour ÷ 60 minutes in hour= 6, 600 feet per minute ÷ 60 second per minute = 110 feet per second. I figure I'll just start talking math here, bore you all a bit, probably do the trick to let this thread die.

 

I have a way to bridge those differences posted here...Companies (not the O/O slowing down by choice)who claim that they are slowing their company trucks down to save fuel is pure horse s....uh...nuggets. The reason I say this is because, they rotate trucks every 3 or 4 years, and they could spec these units with an axle ratio that allows them to run at a higher speed at the same rpm their current trucks are turning at 60. There is only a few problems with this...a) do you want some of these fresh from school newb's running faster? (I'm not saying all of these slower company's drivers are newb's, but they attract a lot more of them than other companies, and they tend to be "training" companies) b) they might have to replace the 10 speed with a 13 speed if they do much mountain climbing out west. A 10 speed geared to run for fuel mileage might not do the best job climbing hills. But, a 13 speed would, but confuse too many of the newbie drivers the companies are training. And the proof I have is when I worked for Crete, the 1st year they went from 65 to 62, I was driving one of their old Century Class trucks. When they turned my truck down, which was spec'd to run at 65, my fuel mileage dropped because it took my engine out of it's sweet spot and made it run too low. The next model year had a different gear ratio, and the newer engines that are built to run at a lower rpm, so they could achieve the desired fuel mileage...

Moral of the story...it's about safety...not fuel mileage...they could spec 'em to run faster and get mileage, but would you want the Prime's and the CRE's of this world driving any faster? Imagine the carnage...