1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176 
P LETTER OF THE WEEK
Page 20
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Crying foul over Teardrop trailer comparision test
I WOULD like to congratulate Commercial Motor on the genuinely intriguing article published in CM 25 September 2008 (IN The Efficiency Drive'). Some of the findings from the MIRA research carried out for Lawrence David were highly informative and we fully endorse this kind of debate.
However, there is one issue we found quite disturbing — the reference to testing carried out on a "so-called 'teardrop' design". We have no problem with the Don-Bur Teardrop trailer being compared with any other trailer type; however, the design illustrated and being referred to as a "teardrop" was far from representative of our design. We were not at all surprised by the less-than-encouraging results as the design shown was simply a 'hump' placed on top of an existing standard trailer.
The Teardrop trailer, as its name suggests, is teardrop-shaped, with the main bulk positioned forward of the centre position and a rear that tapers lower than the front. We felt that the association of a 'cottage loaf' trailer illustration with the Teardrop name in CM was misleading; the recent independent testing on the Teardrop, done at MIRA and published exclusively in CM 10 July, should have indicated that something was amiss! Secondly, while computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis is relatively accurate for comparing relative Cd (drag) values, it is not the ideal tool to provide real data to support purchasing decisions. We have always endorsed the thinking that the only reliable information is generated by the operator and we have encouraged our clients to trial our free demonstrator. All the results from these trials are published on our website.
Richard Owens Group marketing manager Don-Bur (Bodies & Trailers( Stoke-on-Tren, Staffs Ed says: Given the pressure on operators to save fuel, it's hardly surprising that aerodynamics should have been forced more into the spotlight.
However, knowledge of the subject among UK operators is limited and it is not made any easier to understand through the use of, at times, confusing terminology. So, together with Don-Bur, we plan to run an explanatory feature on the subject, demystifying the jargon to enable readers to make educated decisions about the relative benefits of the aerodynamic products on the market.