I may wax eloquently about RVs, but not so much about this one. And it comes from Austria, no less. And the price tag, converted to US dollars is almost $3 million. At first I was a bit dumfounded how anyone could come up with this, but a bit of digging explains it all, sort of. It was designed by that lover of anything but square: Luigi Colani, and the front end is an evolution of his proposal for an aerodynamic Supertruck.
Colani has a colorful past, including some far out automobile designs which maybe we’ll save for another day. For what its worth, the Supertruck works a fair amount better for me then the eleMMent, probably because the tanker is round too. The marriage of the round front and square body of the RV is anything but organic.
Here’s the view from the bridge. Interesting rotary wiper array, although the MM doesn’t seem to show that in the top photograph.I won’t bother showing you the interior shots, because frankly, they’re all just computer generated. But here’s the link.
I’ve always wondered if the trucking/truck building industry rejected his ideas for being ineffective, or if they’re just so radical looking that they refuse to implement them even if they would (as claimed) reduce operating costs.
What percentage reduction in fuel costs would it take to get a tradtional trucker to drive one of those things?
Fuel is only one aspect of it. The whole cost of operation has to be factored; from purchase to disposal.
I frankly can’t see it. The styling has to be paid for; and then that looks like complex mouldings and stampings. To say nothing of the glass, which would have to be shaped and fitted.
Some high-style has entered into the trucking industry; but it’s still mostly easily molded fiberglass hoods; easily stamped doors and side panels.
When International replaced the Loadstar series with the S-series truck in 1977, they went with a COMPLETELY flat, rectangular windshield. To save costs. Today, they and other manufacturers have backed away somewhat from that level of spartan; but cost is still a major, major consideration.
Other than what looks to me like ugly orange 70’s van carpet, I find myself kind of liking it.
It looks horribly phallic.
And worse, it’s not human.
Do they really need that huge shaft for the wiper? Maybe a small motor and a power strip embedded in the glass like a defroster would work better….or aerodynamically assisting the motor with blades that spin with the wind, or even infinitely adjustable blades that will spin at different speeds due to the amount of pitch on the blade…
It seems to me that the “aero” trucks took a long time to be accepted here in the USA. Whether that was because they looked different, or folks wanted to wait and see if there was any ‘there’ to the purported fuel savings, I have no idea.
At the end of the day, designs like Colani’s are perhaps not so easily mass-producible, which would be another thing to limit them to niche and low-production volume markets…
It was cost; and, yes, no acceptance in the marketplace.
The “aero” designs do save fuel. But the important thing to truckers is, not saving fuel but saving operating costs. When fuel was relatively cheap, it didn’t affect the bottom line much; often the “aero” design cost more than the savings; yes, and it didn’t look like a “Real Truck.”
The Kenworth “Anteater” design took years to be accepted, but it was, and it did save. And with fuel now over four dollars a gallon…and with other pressures from governments to save…not only are the airflow designs standard, but skirts under the trailers are becoming commonplace and are required in California.
The tanker brings memories of some of the streamlined Labatt’s beer trucks and Dodge and Diamond T tankers of the late 30’s.
Here’s what it reminds me of: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaxUrraggQg
i cant see that blending well with a curtainsided Btrain freight is not curved and pallets work best stacked square . Aero efficient cabovers dont look like this yet.
I was going to say “overstyled” but then I realized that it looks more like something from HR Giger mind.
And then you have these two, looking on forlornly.
alistair
The cab of the tanker is shaped like the (inverted) bulbous bow of a ship, hardly original but I can see how if would be effective.
Seems like US truckers prefer style than fuel efficiency. Granted most big rig today that you see on the road is the more aerodynamic types, but they were mostly company trucks that’s simply assigned to the driver. When drivers can afford their own trucks, though, they seem to prefer the classic truck look.