Maybe everyone in this thread knows this, but it hasn't been mentioned: US trucks are all cab-behind-engine, and European trucks are all cab-over-engine. That's why they look so different. The US style supposedly has some benefits in maintenance and maybe efficiency, but the European style works much better in cities with narrow streets and tight turns.
"In contrast, European regulations are much stricter regarding the dimensions of trucks. In European Union member countries, trucks cannot exceed 18.75 meters in length, which prioritizes the maximum use of available space for cargo. Manufacturers resort to solutions such as the use of smaller cabs and flat bodies to comply with these regulations while still maintaining cargo capacity."
I tried to find some official document that properly explained how and why they agreed on these values, but it's really hard to find proper documents.
After all, the directive was agreed on in 1996...
That's part of the reason, but it doesn't explain the use of chrome, rectangular or round headlights instead of molded headlights that integrate into the bodywork, and many other design elements that have remained virtually unchanged since the 1970s. I think a lot of it is just that Americans like the look.
TBH, that's Peterbuilt's design language. My guess is that the parent poster was talking about the 589. That's what I think of when I think about tractor-trailers.
https://www.peterbilt.com/trucks/on-highway/589
If you compare, say, the Peterbilt 579 and 589, you'll find that the former is way more modern looking and aerodynamic and the latter is very classic and old school looking. The 579 is also vastly more fuel efficient. I'm fairly certain that the classic design of the 589 is entirely for aesthetic reasons rather than for part interchangeability.
This might be completely wrong, since my understanding is based very much off of Truck Simulator games, but isn’t one of the reasons aerodynamics as well? The US is huge, and trips can take several days at high speeds, so aerodynamic improvements can save quite a bit of money, whereas EU is smaller, the trucks do not go at large speeds for as long and have to navigate tiny city streets, thus being more compact is an advantage there.
Look into truck speed limits in the EU. They are absurdly low. It's common to see trucks in America going 75 mph for comparison. A typical governor is 80 mph.
Most EU trucks are GOVERNED to 56 mph.
American trucks are high performance racing machines by comparison.
> American trucks are high performance racing machines by comparison.
Only when you look at governed speed. If I remember the aforementioned Bruce Wilson videos correctly, his imported truck has something like 120 horsepower more than the local counterparts.
Weight-wise, American trucks are limited to 80.000 lbs. The EU allows 88.000 lbs everywhere, but heavier trucks are becoming more and more common. For example, short-distance transport to and from sea ports can be 97.000 lbs, they are exploring raising the EU-wide limit to 132.000 lbs, and Finland and Sweden already allow 165.000 lbs for long-distance transport with trials for 194.000 lbs. That's over twice as much cargo per truck as in the US!
And going fast is one thing, but you need to be able to do so safely. I've heard plenty of stories of American truckers complaining about it being "impossible to stop quickly". Meanwhile in Europe things like radar-assisted emergency braking are becoming the default, and the trucks are able to stop on a dime. Kid suddenly jumps in front of a truck? No problem, they'll live [0]. The driver is going to need a new pair of pants and the trailer is going to be an absolute mess, but that kid hasn't been turned into physics!
Both European and American prime movers have been in service for many years on road trains in Australia with gross masses over 600,000lb, though that’s only in remote areas.
150,000lb B-doubles however are common nationwide.
Not as much as you'd think, though. At higher speeds you need more distance between individual vehicles, as the vehicles need significantly more time to stop. The rule-of-thumb is that you should keep a three-second gap between vehicles - which if followed would mean speed is completely unrelated to road capacity [0].
The higher speeds are also going to lead to more frequent and nastier incidents, which means more traffic jams. Once the roads get full lower speeds might even result in a higher average throughput!
The numbers you quote don't show math, and even if they did, the math is different for each vehicle airflow.
Regardless, efficiency has many properties.
Time means more labour cost + cost of spending another day on the road, plus time not shipping something else.
I sometimes, in my car, drive from Quebec to California. It can take an extra day to make this drive, if I must drive slower due to weather, traffic, or construction.
EG 60mph vs 80mph average (yes, average without stops).
A little more fuel pales in comparison to these costs.
Shouldn't the trucks be more used for "last mile" operations from the cargo trains vs going very long distances and needing to go very fast? Seems like that would be the more appropriate solution.
Interestingly, the freight train network in the US is a lot better than that of Europe and Asia. A much larger fraction of goods is delivered by train in the US at a higher efficiency.
> the freight train network in the US is a lot better than that of Europe and Asia
That depends a lot on how you look at it. The US got screwed by geography and doesn't have a lot of inland waterways. This means that rail freight is the only viable option for a lot of bulk cargo. The US is sending an awful lot of coal and grain via train, but in Europe most of that is done by river and canal.
The US also has a rather poor record quality-wise. Electrified rail basically doesn't exist, precision-scheduled railroading has made delivery times a joke, the infrastructure is crumbling, and freight trains are utterly incapable of playing nice with passenger rail. Heck, they are literally running trains which are too large to fit on the railways! It has been optimized for dirt-cheap bulk transport and as a result it isn't really capable of doing anything else.
The fact that US railways have such high tonne-miles, despite the state of the railways, says more about the complete lack of competition than it says about the railways.
Cargo shipping is a mix of all modes. Rail has a lot of good things going for it, but capacity is limited, routes are limited, speeds are limited, and trains are fairly inflexible.
Trucks can be used for a lot more things. They might not be ideal for long distance routes, but they're often used for them. Dock to dock time is often going to be far less with long haul trucking than truck to local train depot, rail to remote train depot, truck to remote dock.
It's also much harder to build rail capacity than road capacity; certainly that'a a function of our government, but someone with one container to move has to work within the environment.
Trucking also feels like it has more agency. If your truck fails, you can send another to pick up the load; if your train fails, you're at the mercy of the railroad. If there's disruptive weather in the path, a truck can drive around it; almost always a train will have to stay on its route, and may need to stop for the weather to clear. If the shipment needs to be recalled, the truck can turn around; you might be able to get your load off the train, but maybe not?
I have no specialized knowledge in this, but I don’t think that cost efficiency is the primary reason for using trucks over trains. Because, if it was, rail with last mile by truck would probably win. Rail has a very low cost per mile by weight rate. But, it can be slow. Particularly when you consider that there are only a few routes across the country (across the Rockies), and trucks can go directly from point A to point B without needing to connect to a rail hub at both ends.
In someways it seems similar to why the hub and spoke model has fallen out of favor for airlines. It might be more efficient to have one large flight between hubs and two small flights to regional airports, but passengers would rather have a direct flight.
Maybe, but the semis are also faster due to bureaucratic reasons involving train operators, which are mostly state owned companies in Europe. So p derivate enterprises just hire a trucking company to deliver goods faster. Rail is mostly used for cement, oil products, fertilizer and grain.
For instance in my country the public train company is absolutely brain damaged as it doesn't have enough bike transportation spots (only some trains do). There are even trains with a bike symbol that you're not allowed with a bike on. Thanks to the EU Green Deal they are now forced to provide them.
> You'd literally need to build more roads, as long haul trucks would be on the road, literally, for an entire day longer per load. Speed is efficiency.
Only up to a point. The relationship between speed and fuel burned is not linear, and fuel is the largest cost.
The legislated maximum speed for heavy vehicles in Australia is 100km/h, but most major fleets electronically limit their vehicles to 90 for efficiency reasons.
Every extra km/h over 90 has a negligible impact on trip time while imposing a large penalty in terms of fuel burn.
Truckers are also limited to how many hours they can drive per day, but not on how much distance they can cover, so more speed is an optimization to the driver’s paycheck. Autonomous trucks wouldn’t have that problem and could maximize efficiency.
It's more that the EU regulations on the total length of the articulated lorry include the tractor, but American regulations limit the length of each part.
Not quite. Originally, the tighter length limits were intended to give trucks a disadvantage compared to freight trains. But engine technology caught up and more efficient smaller engines negated that limitation.
Not really. A regular truck & trailer is way too big to fit in space-constrained city centers. When it gets really tight they'll just send a box truck, often with a trailer they can leave behind outside the city center for some extra capacity when it's a multi-stop trip [0]. The fancy ones even have doors in the front of the trailer, making it quite easy to move freight from the trailer into the box truck itself.
On the other hand, the highway infrastructure has plenty of space for large trucks. If the roads to & from the main highway network can handle it, some countries will give you permits for all sorts of fancy combinations[1] up to 83 ft long. Considering that it'll still be pulled with a regular cab-over truck, that's a lot of space for freight. They are now even trialing the "Super EcoCombi", which is essentially two full semi-trailers[2], for a total of 105 ft!
> aerodynamic improvements can save quite a bit of money
If there were any significant amount of a saved money then a 'brick style' tractors like Peterbilt 389 [0] would be long gone purely by economical factors. It's still a brick on wheels which pushes a multi-ton load.
It's more a combination of a lack of a meaningful train system, an overall spareness of the cities and the roads and a male appendage measuring cont^W^W^W^W history and customs around the trucks[1].
The problem of course is that during WWII, every narrow gauge feeder line of less than 100 miles length in the U.S. was pulled up and shipped to Europe for the war effort --- after the war, there was little effort made to rebuild them (the big 3 focusing on the individually owned car and so forth) --- remember this the next time a European boasts about their wonderful rail system:
Thanks for the interesting link. Where can I read more about the dismantling of feeder lines ? All I can find is that narrow gauge was closing down or being replaced and their steel used in the war. Can't see a concerted effort though.
Yes, it moves a lot. Because there are 300m+ people there[0]. But if you just search for a 'USA train network' and compare that to a 'Europe train network' it would be pretty self evident.
Also take a note of the cargo distribution of the US train traffic in the link you provided yourself:
>> Of all the rail cargo, approximately 91% is made up of agriculture and energy products, vehicles and parts, construction materials, coal, chemicals, food, metal, minerals, and paper.
Most of it is not transported by the trucks in the first place. And what matters the most is what you need a proper network distribution so you only haul the last 50-100kms on the trucks, instead of the "trips [what] can take several days at high speeds"[1]
So you brought the wrong metric in the numbers measuring contest.
[0] and let's ignore what China and Russia has a quite comparable numbers of tonne-kilometers: 2.525, 2.518, 2.222.
I looked up "USA train network" and a map showing a high density of rails across the continental U.S. was one of the first results. It was as dense, or denser, than the comparable European networks.
But the U.S. train networks primarily serve cargo; the passenger rail network is quite sparse. This is because people in the U.S. prefer to fly or drive or taking the train given the vast distances involved between major cities. (London to Paris is about equal to the distance between LA and Vegas but significantly shorter than the distance between LA and SF.)
I am frankly amazed that US trucks, which already have an elongated "nose first" tractor shape, have not evolved to look more like high-speed train engines.
Some have become more aerodynamic with the mirrors, over cab cowling, and wheel cowling. I wonder if some of the flat front had to do with airflow over the radiator.
Good radiator space was definitely some of it, part of the requirement for the engines and transmissions to last the like million+ miles truckers want out of them is to have more than merely sufficient cooling in order to keep both the engine and transmission to stay the same temperature no matter how hot it is outside or how hard they need to run the engines to get up a hill. Of course that is along side other semi-truck specific equipment like bypass oil filters that have a MUCH finer filter to remove smaller metal particles that would otherwise just pass right through the main oil filter. More variable operating temperatures and worse oil filtration might be fine for consumer vehicles that are mostly rusted out trash out by time they hit 300,000 miles, but you wouldn't want to have to buy a brand new semi-truck engine every 3 years.
No but it is incredibly simple and reliable to just have a large opening for a large set of radiators rather than worrying about ducting and air velocity and pressures as they go through them.
Cab-overs do exist in the US. They are primarily used for short haul and are less common than they were in decades past. The 70s TV show BJ and the Bear featured a Kenworth with a sleeper cab. Those don't seem to exist anymore in the US.
