Breaking Down Braking's Problems
by Dominic Muren, Philadelphia, USA on 05. 5.05
In the average 600 miles journey the driver of a heavy transport tractor trailer will make at least 1000 gear changes. Experienced drivers estimate that a third of any trip is spent braking! Since every gear change brings wasted fuel and engine wear, and all that braking is just wasted energy and break wear, there are huge opportunities in putting the energy to better use. The descendants of Vince Carman's ill-fated dream may be part of the solution...
Borrowing from the hydraulic transmission principle, hydraulic assist braking systems sit in between the engine and driveshaft, allowing slowing of speeding up of the wheels depending on the situation. When the trucker applies brakes, the crankshaft turns a pump which pressurizes hydraulic fluid in an accumulator, and slowing the wheels, which reduces the amount of brake pressure needed to stop the truck. Now, when the driver wants to accelerate, that stored pressure is used to spin up the crankshaft, relieving the burden on the engine, which is running at a horribly sub-optimum RPM, and burning lots of extra fuel. With the assistance, the driver can start in a higher gear, and use less fuel.
The benefits of this system over a fully hydraulic drivetrain are its potential for retrofitting into existing trucks, and its lower upkeep costs, since it can be mostly sealed and self contained. An added benefit for everyone is the increased stopping power of the trucks, which leads to better road safety. These systems are under development for commuter and cargo trains, and garbage collection vehicles, in addition to cargo trucks
Multiple companies, including Permo-drive, and Shep technologies are working on these technologies, so chances for their implementation seem better than ever (or at least better than 1970).
Thanks to Wojciech Sierka for the tip. [by DM]
"...Over the past two decades, the United States trucking industry has increased its fuel consumption by a massive 400 million barrels per day..."
You should fact check before you post specific figures. The entire world output of oil is something around 40 million barrels per day - so your assertion is not only wildly off mark, but it suggests that you just made this figure up out of thin air.
Mart-
You're absolutely right. I bungled the check on that one. Though not pulled quite out of thin air (I got them from Permo-drive's website: http://www.permo-drive.com/ ) these numbers are too outrageous to excuse.
Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find any specific data on US trucking oil usage, so I've just made the scentence ominously ambiguous for the time being. If you have any sources you could recommend, I'd love to post some real data for treehuggers to use.
Cheers,
-Dom (the author)
You have two other "fact" in the opening too:
"...In Europe, road transport is the continent’s fastest growing industry. In Australia, 40% of the population is exposed to undesirable traffic noise..."
and you assert:
"...Over the next decade these figures are going to increase substantially..."
So - can we assume these have been "fact checked" too?
I just wish you'd stick with the story of braking technology. sure - put it into context - but do so by eliminating that first paragraph and making the second paragraph the opening.
Sheesh! I should be your editor here...
Mart, while it's not 400 million per day, world oil production is certainly not 40 million - I believe it's 82 million, as I recall from recent articles on Saudi oil production (10-ish million).
I can see US trucking increasing its use by 400 million barrels of oil *per year*.
Yes - my first reaction that was day had been mistakenly substituted for year. Nevertheless, I think my point about fact checking has been made.
However, begin an article with these "facts" that are not only wrong, but unattributed and it gives the impression the author isn't going to let the real facts get in the way of his story or his advocacy.
I'm all in favor of "Tree Hugging" despite being from the Right side of the political spectrum, and the cliche falacy that therefore I don't care about the environment, but TreeHugger.com doesn't do its advocacy any good with article intros like this one. And you'd asume the RSS feed would truncate the article when summarizing it, displaying only the offending text...
Mart and all-
I axed the begining paragraph as per your suggestions. Thanks for all the input.
i totally agree with you on fact checking, mart. but if you vote for bush, how much do you value the environment? where is the falacy? whether or not you personally voted for him, that is where the assumption comes from. fine if you want to line up your priorities by putting the war or the economy or social policy in front of the environment, but don't complain about being written off as 'un-treehugger' when you use environmentalism as a concession to get to your top priorities. it may be cliche, but the shoe does fit.
anyway, it was a story about new engine technology and i'm still looking for a reason to bring politics into it.